Gold Is The Root Of All Evil, Not Money

OP
michael94

michael94

Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2015
Messages
2,419
not understanding what real money is and the subsequent lack of gold backing of the US dollar is what has got America in the mess that it is in. the unchecked fiat currency model simply increases the wealth divide, similar to what we are seeing at the moment with money printing. the opposite encourages people to save, not spend. Dan Oliver has written many articles like the following that helps explain gold as money and its importance over the last few thousand years.


Feb 29, 2012,01:08pm EST
Warren Buffett May Know Value, But He Doesn't Know What Money Is

Capital Flows
Contributor
Opinion
Guest commentary curated by Forbes Opinion. Avik Roy, Opinion Editor.
This article is more than 8 years old.
By Daniel Oliver Jr.

Warren Buffett may be able to spot value, but the poor man has no idea what money is. In his latest screed against gold, Buffett compares the metal of kings to tulips: an asset to be bought either for decorative value or in the hope it can be sold again to a greater fool at a higher price. Gold has little industrial use and does not procreate: “if you own one ounce of gold for an eternity, you will still own one ounce at its end.”

Buffett is correct that an once of gold will never increase nor diminish in size, but he ignores the fact that its value has been steadily increasing for at least 200 years.

According to the Historical Statistics of the United States, in 1800 an ounce of gold bought 11 bushels of wheat. In 1998, even as gold probed a generational low, an ounce purchased 85 bushels. Gold’s purchasing power in terms of copper went from 36 pounds per ounce to 365 pounds during the same time period, and it rose 5.3 times against cotton. Since 1998, gold has continued to rise, tripling against the CRB Commodities Index. Not bad for an inanimate metal the best use of which, according to Buffett, is to be fondled.

The reason for gold’s historical performance is simple: it is money.

Carl Menger, founder of the Austrian School of economics, was the first to explain why every economic agent is “ready to exchange his goods for little metal disks apparently useless as such, or for documents representing the latter.” Most goods are
illiquid, meaning transaction costs of trade are high.



Recommended For You
Anyone wishing to swap one good for another has two choices. Either he can barter, which requires finding a trading partner with exact coincidence of needs, or he can trade his goods for an intermediate good, more liquid than his own, that will enable him to obtain the goods he seeks from third parties.

The elements of liquidity include spatial considerations, such a low transaction costs, uniformity and divisibility, and general acceptability. They also include temporal characteristics, such as low storage costs, indestructibility, and a stable value over time. These latter qualities allow for savings, which is the basis of all capital formation.

PROMOTED

Civic Nation BRANDVOICE | Paid Program
Student Parent Voices Are Critical To Colleges’ Civic Engagement Plans

Grads of Life BRANDVOICE | Paid Program
Workforce Update: A Balancing Act For America's Working Women

UNICEF USA BRANDVOICE | Paid Program
The Mother Of All Summits

Gold is money because of all the elements it most perfectly embodies the attributes of liquidity. Currency, mere paper at best, can act as money only to the extent it is backed by gold or sound promises to deliver gold.

But why should the value of gold increase over time?

Henry Hazlitt defined inflation as: “an increase in the supply of money that outruns the increase in the supply of goods.” When the opposite happens, when the increase in the supply of goods exceeds the increase in money, prices go down.

Gold mining adds approximately 1.5% to the above ground supply each year, and global economic growth over the past 200 years has been far higher. As long as economic growth continues to exceed gold production, gold’s value will continue to increase.

Buffett claims that gold has no yield, yet its purchasing power has compounded at an annual rate of 0.9% for over two centuries. And, the increase is pure, safe from onerous transaction costs, hidden from the avaricious eyes of the taxman, and immune from the threat of currency debasement.

Buffett is also incorrect about gold’s function: its purpose is not to be hoarded. In the Parable of the Talents, Jesus praises the servants who invest their money and curses the servant who buries his money in the ground. Capital used for productive increase should always outpace money, so it is no surprise that stocks should outperform gold. What is shocking is by how little they have outperformed.

Using Buffett’s own numbers, since 1965 the S&P 500 has compounded by 9.3% per year, as opposed to 8.6% for gold. Since three-quarters of the S&P’s return is compounded dividends, and since its components constantly change, the extra 0.7% return more than vanishes after deducting for taxes and transaction costs. Investing talent in productivity may be good and noble, but sinking capital into the market has enriched only management and the army of middlemen required to navigate the 145,000 pages of federal regulations.

Gold’s value rises gradually with economic growth over the long term, but it spikes when the productive must bury their wealth to protect it from a rapacious state. A Congressman explained gold’s political role in 1948, saying: “If Congress seemed receptive to reckless spending schemes, depositors’ demands over the country for gold would soon become serious.” The Congressman was, of course, Warren Buffet’s father, and he described exactly what is now occurring.

Howard Buffett understood the “connection between money, redeemable in gold, and the rare prize known as human liberty” in a way his son, obviously, does not. Warren writes that a cow, giving milk, is a better investment than gold. And so it should be. But milk can have price controls imposed on it, and cows can be taxed or confiscated. Warren should know, since he constantly agitates for higher taxes.

Government spending at all levels accounts for 40% of GDP and, as Milton Friedman taught, the burden of government is how much it spends, not how much it taxes. The federal government must now borrow more than a third of its expenditures and, when the voluntary contributions known as Treasury bonds dwindle, the state will use more direct methods.

Ultimately, all such experiments in centralized economics fail, and hoarded gold will come back into circulation for productive use. Those wise enough to have held and to part with their gold when liberty reemerges will be rewarded for their husbandry of capital with ownership of productive assets.

Warren Buffett will not be among them. As he says, “What the wise man does in the beginning, the fool does in the end.” When Buffett finally panics into gold, sell it to him.

— Daniel Oliver Jr. is the founder of Myrmikan Capital, LLC, and a director of the Committee for Monetary Research and Education. He has a J.D. from Columbia Law School and an M.B.A. from INSEAD.
Throw it back in the Rhine
 

GAF

Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2014
Messages
789
Age
67
Location
Dallas Texas
Real wealth is free happy healthy people living naturally with nature and each other.

It would be nice to participate in that and see what that looks like.
 

gaze

Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
2,270
Dont really agree with darwin about anything. I dont believe in evolution as it is taught ( i.e. we evolved from primates who evolved from fish that crawled onto land ). Fascism was a pushback to money changers overstepping with their schemes. Yea it can be perceived as too authoritarian, but its much less nefarious than what Finance capitalists were doing and still are doing. If you torture someone and they lash out who is the bad guy? People get pissed when their daughters and mothers start prostituting themselves just to be able to eat, imagine if they knew the reasons for the situation they were in. Fury can be a gift.

except hitler was capitalistic and pro-privatization, he just blamed Jewish capitalists so people wouldn't notice all the other cronies funding the regime. Nazism was a blend of facism and oligarchy, just about the worst system to live under
 

mrchibbs

Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2017
Messages
3,135
Location
Atlantis
I misread the title as ''god is the root of all evil, not money'' and I thought that made sense as well :D
 
OP
michael94

michael94

Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2015
Messages
2,419
except hitler was capitalistic and pro-privatization, he just blamed Jewish capitalists so people wouldn't notice all the other cronies funding the regime. Nazism was a blend of facism and oligarchy, just about the worst system to live under

"This means that the State is not concerned with economic conditions as long as they do not conflict with the welfare of the nation. The principle of private initiative has been maintained. However, where it seems necessary to bring business into line with the welfare of the nation, the State will not hesitate to intervene and direct business into the desired channels. In Germany, contrary to the usual belief, we have no "planned economy", but rather a "directed" economy, if I may use such an expression."

from Third Reich Economic Policy, 1933-1938

Certain individuals like Goering became wealthy during this time, it was earned wealth. This may be a difficult concept for binary brains but there is tremendous difference between International Finance raking every transaction while not actually producing anything of value and industrialists making money by being valuable to the real economy.

When the NSDAP came to power they gave farmers a blank slate on their debts and created the Reichsnahrstand to gradually increase autarky and farmer profitability in Germany. If that is "Capitalist" to you then I dont know what to say. In other instances they gave forgivable loans in the form of coupons for appliances to newlyweds worth 1000 RM.

Germany was also conducting international trade off the Gold standard with South America and Italy ( using large scale barter instead ) which denied Banks their tithe.

I am curious which instances of crony-ism you are referring to
 

gaze

Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
2,270
"This means that the State is not concerned with economic conditions as long as they do not conflict with the welfare of the nation. The principle of private initiative has been maintained. However, where it seems necessary to bring business into line with the welfare of the nation, the State will not hesitate to intervene and direct business into the desired channels. In Germany, contrary to the usual belief, we have no "planned economy", but rather a "directed" economy, if I may use such an expression."

from Third Reich Economic Policy, 1933-1938

Certain individuals like Goering became wealthy during this time, it was earned wealth. This may be a difficult concept for binary brains but there is tremendous difference between International Finance raking every transaction while not actually producing anything of value and industrialists making money by being valuable to the real economy.

When the NSDAP came to power they gave farmers a blank slate on their debts and created the Reichsnahrstand to gradually increase autarky and farmer profitability in Germany. If that is "Capitalist" to you then I dont know what to say. In other instances they gave forgivable loans in the form of coupons for appliances to newlyweds worth 1000 RM.

Germany was also conducting international trade off the Gold standard with South America and Italy ( using large scale barter instead ) which denied Banks their tithe.

I am curious which instances of crony-ism you are referring to

"Yet, despite this, Göring had no interest nor desire in confronting Hitler's expansionist worldview. He was, as his economic policies clearly demonstrated, very much a fascist at heart. However, like most Nazi oligarchs, the future Reichsmarschall was a creature of ambition who actively pursued whatever strategy combined the extension of his personal empire with the goals of the National Socialist revolution. His foreign policy endeavors had simply been one tactic in a broad effort to spread his influence into another pillar of the state. When Hitler rejected this traditionalist approach in favor of Ribbentrop’s15 aggressive expansionism, Göring simply turned his attention to other matters – it was of no pressing concern to him. In stark contrast to his imperial-revisionist foreign policy, Göring aggressively pursued the Nazification of the economy as Plenipotentiary of the Four-Year Plan. His fascist economic policies were perfectly captured in a 1938 speech before the German Labor Front; “Just as I will be resolved to ignore the fate of individuals, if the well-being of the community demands it, I shall not show weakness in placing the interests of the Volk above the interests of individual businesses.”16 These were neither hollow words, nor an idle threat. Göring was prepared to fight Germany's traditional economic elite for unfettered control of the economy."

https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1032&context=history-in-the-making

like I said, hitler blames the Jewish financial capitalists so other, more beneficial to the regime capitalists could take their place. “Earned wealth” hahah, at one point every person earned their wealth, what would you have said if 3 generations on gorings and the others kids and the banks and rules they set up a still ruled over Germany? Capital accumulation is the same no matter what blood or race does it
 
Last edited:
OP
michael94

michael94

Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2015
Messages
2,419
"Yet, despite this, Göring had no interest nor desire in confronting Hitler's expansionist worldview. He was, as his economic policies clearly demonstrated, very much a fascist at heart. However, like most Nazi oligarchs, the future Reichsmarschall was a creature of ambition who actively pursued whatever strategy combined the extension of his personal empire with the goals of the National Socialist revolution. His foreign policy endeavors had simply been one tactic in a broad effort to spread his influence into another pillar of the state. When Hitler rejected this traditionalist approach in favor of Ribbentrop’s15 aggressive expansionism, Göring simply turned his attention to other matters – it was of no pressing concern to him. In stark contrast to his imperial-revisionist foreign policy, Göring aggressively pursued the Nazification of the economy as Plenipotentiary of the Four-Year Plan. His fascist economic policies were perfectly captured in a 1938 speech before the German Labor Front; “Just as I will be resolved to ignore the fate of individuals, if the well-being of the community demands it, I shall not show weakness in placing the interests of the Volk above the interests of individual businesses.”16 These were neither hollow words, nor an idle threat. Göring was prepared to fight Germany's traditional economic elite for unfettered control of the economy."

https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1032&context=history-in-the-making

like I said, hitler blames the Jewish financial capitalists so other, more beneficial to the regime capitalists could take their place. “Earned wealth” hahah, at one point every person earned their wealth, what would you have said if 3 generations on gorings and the others kids and the banks and rules they set up a still ruled over Germany? Capital accumulation is the same no matter what blood or race does it
That quote you included says that the interests of individuals and individual businesses were to be subordinated the larger goals of the Nation if necessary. Thats not Capitalism or cronyism. Someone earning a lot of money because of their merits doesnt change that.

You have to provide examples of were the Capital was placed before the Nations interests. I posted examples where the opposite was done
 

gaze

Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
2,270
That quote you included says that the interests of individuals and individual businesses were to be subordinated the larger goals of the Nation if necessary. Thats not Capitalism or cronyism. Someone earning a lot of money because of their merits doesnt change that.

You have to provide examples of were the Capital was placed before the Nations interests. I posted examples where the opposite was done

I don't think you can ever seperate the regime from the capitalists, because both rely on eachother to maintain power. So I dont think saying that capital isnt placed before the nations interests (which really means the regimes interests) is correct. Hitlers motivations for all we know is pure power, and so the "larger goals of the nation" includes maintaining power. Which means creating relationships with capitalists who will ensure that power is maintained by funding the regime while the regime allows them to gain economic power, while blaming all the problems on the jewish capitalists to ensure the main threats against the regime and the "good" capitalists are looked down upon. I don't think an oligarchy necessarily means the economic interests have to come first in every scenario, I think its more of a symbiotic relationship. The politicians gain political power while the business people gain economic power. I don't think our conversation will get anywhere, cause it always comes down to ideological opinions on both sides.
 
Last edited:
OP
michael94

michael94

Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2015
Messages
2,419
I don't think you can ever seperate the regime from the capitalists, because both rely on eachother to maintain power. So I dont think saying that capital isnt placed before the nations interests (which really means the regimes interests) is correct. Hitlers motivations for all we know is pure power, and so the "larger goals of the nation" includes maintaining power. Which means creating relationships with capitalists who will ensure that power is maintained by funding the regime while the regime allows them to gain economic power, while blaming all the problems on the jewish capitalists to ensure the main threats against the regime and the "good" capitalists are looked down upon. I don't think an oligarchy necessarily means the economic interests have to come first in every scenario, I think its more of a symbiotic relationship. The politicians gain political power while the business people gain economic power. I don't think our conversation will get anywhere, cause it always comes down to ideological opinions on both sides.
Well, you dont believe there is a fundamental difference in growing Capital in speculation and rent seeking vs growing it in ways which actually are a boon to the population. That would be our difference of ideological opinion.

Despite the information I provided to the contrary you are still holding to that NS Germany was somehow ruled by a business oligarchy. If National interests and business interests happen to align on occasion this is not evidence of some nefarious conspiracy, especially considering all the tangible examples of the Government stepping in to ensure the proper relation of Capital to National interests.

NS Party members were not even allowed to own stock in companies that received government contracts even after they retired from public service.
 
EMF Mitigation - Flush Niacin - Big 5 Minerals

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom