Vi får et kæmpe krak der vil overgå 1929

Et hvert historisk forsøg på at fastlåse valutablokke til hinanden med fast guldfod, sølvfod osv. har fejlet fatalt, fordi økonomierne udvikler sig i hver sin retning og det på et tidspunkt som en naturlov bliver nødvendigt at re- og devaluere forskellige møntfødder mod hinanden.

Alene af den grund fungerer guldfoden ikke.

Dernæst kan man naturligvis ikke have en møntenhed, hvor pludselig råstofudvinding i fx nordvestgrønland, kan føre til hyperinflation, som det skete med de store guldfund i 1870erne i USA.

Guldfoden som løsning er komplet latterlig, og af samme grund hører man (mig bekendt) ikke en eneste seriøs økonomi plædere for dens indførelse. Guldfoden løser intet, men skaber nye eksplosive problemer.

Den eneste løsning på den nuværende finansielle situation er at.
a) Man lader dollaren devaluere ned i 2-3 kr., der er det naturlige ligevægtsniveau hvor indkomst, forbrug, import og eksport går op i en højere enhed i USA. En devaluering (eller depreciering som det retteligt hedder) er afgørende for at USA kan komme tilbage på spordet.
b) DK skal arbejde tæt sammen med vores venner i EU og vi skal med i Euroen.
c) DK skal holde lønniveauet i ro ved at få en stram finans- og pengepolitik ind til det tidspunkt hvor arbejdsløsheden ligger på eller over det naturlige arbejdsløshedsniveau og hvor man derfor kan sætte væsentlig ekspansion igang.
d) DK skal sikre erhvervslivet de bedst mulige konkurrencebetingelser, og sikre at vi får et par nye “Novo-Nordisk" virksomheder i kraft af investeringer i Vind, Bølge og Biotech-sektoren.

Alt det andet ævl og bævl om en gammeldags guldfod løser intet, og det vidner bare om at neptuns uforstand og mangel på indsigt i bred makroøkonomi.

Mon ikke der er brug for noget nytænkning istedet for. At binde valutaen fast til et råstof hvad enten der er tale om guld, småsten eller bølgepap vil som GP skriver helt sikkert give nogle problemer. Det viser historien.

Den nuværende model med fiat penge (der trykkes ud af den blå ludt som Neptun ynder at udtrykke det) har også store problemer, hvor den værste er inflationen der primært skyldes at der ikke er ordentlig styr/kontrol på pengeudbuddet.

Målet kunne være et fait system med meget højere regulering af pengemængden og et reelt commitment fra landene om at den inflation der skyldes at pengemængden stiger skal holdes på et så lavt niveau som muligt og helst på 0, således at værdien af penge ikke forringes over tid.

Det er vist det de har forsøgt med euroen via de krav der stilles til medlemslandende men det går vist ikke helt så godt med at overholde de indgåede aftale og forpligtelser og lige nu har alle lande jo travlt med at stimulere økonomierne og disse penge komme desværre for de flestes lande ikke fra den nationale skattekiste men via lån :(.

Der er ikke noget være end at se sin opsparing blive ædt op af inflationen specielt hvis renten samtidig holdes kunstigt lavt af centralbankerne. Det tvinger jo folk ud i risikable investeringer med risiko for bobledannelse og efterfølgende kollaps.

Det er fuldkommen misforstået at inflationen skal holdes på 0,00%.

Hvis man gør det har man ikke den gradvise inflation til at udjævne fastlåsninger i systemet og ubalancer som måtte opstå under vejs.

Eksempel 1: Det er meget vanskeligt at få danskerne til at gå 10% ned i løn, hvis det viser sig at lønkonkurrenceevnen er blevet for ringe sammenlignet med udlandet. Her er det meget bedre at lade lønnen stige mindre end udlandet i en årrække og således lade den inflationære udvikling gnave af ubalancen år for år.

Eksempel 2: Boligpriserne er kommet for højt op, og boligejerne er meget modvillige mod at banke priserne 40% ned. Løsning boligpriserne falder samlet 20%, de sidste 20% opnås ved der i en årrække er meget små prisstigninger, således at pris- og lønudviklingen gradvist reducerer de reale priser, så der igen kommer balance på boligmarkedet.

Den gamle regel holder endnu: Reale priser er flexible, nominelle priser er træge. Derfor er en moderat inflation på 2-2,5% om året godt for samfundet.

GP,

Du skriver at det dårlige ved en guldfod er at værdien af guld svinger i værdi men du synes inflation på 2,5% om året er godt for samfundet. Som med andre ord betyder at penges værdi bliver 2,5% mindre hvert år.

Jeg kan ikke se hvordan et pengesystem der er bygget på ren tillid med meget store udsving er bedre end en guldfod. det hænger simpelthen ikke sammen.

Du mener, det er godt at bankerne kan udlåne 10 gange det beløb de har stående og tage renter for det og lade andre banker gøre det samme, som betyder, at man får en gigantisk bobble over tid som resultere i et gigantisk krak når bankerne kollapser og river samfundet med.

De store tabere blive Hr. og Frue Jensen. De meget rige ved godt at tiden er inde for at sikre pengene, så de ikke bliver tabt i fx. guld og diamanter og når krisen er på sit højeste kan man købe alt op for ingen penge. Det er også, hvad jeg vil gøre.

Det er derfor magteliten elsker krisen og det er derfor, de har skabt den. Man kan kalde det elitært røveri af middelklassen. Hvis du gjorde det samme, ville jeg have mere respekt for dig end at du forsvare det pga. af uvidenhed.

Tror det er dig der bliver grænsepsykotisk når FIAT møntsystemet bryder sammen globalt og du blive nødt til at tænke abstrakt for at få mad lige som alle andre.

Jeg ville sku have respekt for dig hvis dit job var at manipulere læserne på dette forum og du fik noget ud af global depression. Men at du forsvare det uden at få noget ud af det overhovedet er direkte idioti. Det er typer som dig, der er medskyldige i, at jeg har skulle bruge 8-9 år af mit liv på at oplyse folk om den elitære agenda, at krisen er skabt per design, når jeg kunne bruge min tid på at have sjov og ballade. Nu skal jeg bryde min hjerne med at finde ud af, hvordan jeg har mad nok de næste 4 år og vand. Hvor i verdenen det er mest sikkert at være og hvordan jeg kan sikre mine penge bedst muligt.

Husk på krisen er skabt for at plyndre dig og alle andre, fordi i har sovet i timen og ikke ville tro på at der findes en magtful elite som går efter global magt. De taler endda om global mønt som løsning på krisen i EU.

Jeg har talt med et medlem af Rothschild familien og nogen der arbejder for New World Order. Jeg læser hvad de skriver og forstår deres filosofi.

De hader svage “expandable containers", “useless eaters", “Human resource". Eller får/kvæg som de kalder befolkningen. De har ikke det samme syn på andre mennesker som normale mennesker har. De betragter befolkningen som en kræft der skal holdes nede for at det ikke spreder sig og det er deres opgave at holde kræften i skak.

Dette er et monument de har:
THE MESSAGE OF THE GEORGIA GUIDESTONES

1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
2. Guide reproduction wisely – improving fitness and diversity.
3. Unite humanity with a living new language.
4. Rule passion – faith – tradition – and all things with tempered reason.
5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
6. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
8. Balance personal rights with social duties.
9. Prize truth – beauty – love – seeking harmony with the infinite.
10.Be not a cancer on the earth – Leave room for nature – Leave room for nature.

Her er stenene:
http://www.radioliberty.com/stones.htm

Da jeg talte med medlemmet af Rothschild familien, som er en af verdens mest magtfulde familier sagde personen til mig:

(Ordet testers er et ord jeg brugte for eliten.)
“The biggest question that humanity has to answer for itself is “Are we cancer or are we medicine?", and not “Where is God?" So far we share more with cancer cells, we’re programmed to proliferate and destroy our host (earth). So maybe that little group of “testers" is just functioning as medicine?"

Her lidt elitære citater.
http://www.amerikanexpose.com/quotes1.html

Gold and Economic Freedom
By Alan Greenspan (0 comments)

This article originally appeared in a newsletter: The Objectivist published in 1966 and was reprinted in Ayn Rand’s Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

An almost hysterical antagonism toward the gold standard is one issue which unites statists of all persuasions. They seem to sense – perhaps more clearly and subtly than many consistent defenders of laissez-faire – that gold and economic freedom are inseparable, that the gold standard is an instrument of laissez-faire and that each implies and requires the other.

In order to understand the source of their antagonism, it is necessary first to understand the specific role of gold in a free society.

Money is the common denominator of all economic transactions. It is that commodity which serves as a medium of exchange, is universally acceptable to all participants in an exchange economy as payment for their goods or services, and can, therefore, be used as a standard of market value and as a store of value, i.e., as a means of saving.

The existence of such a commodity is a precondition of a division of labor economy. If men did not have some commodity of objective value which was generally acceptable as money, they would have to resort to primitive barter or be forced to live on self-sufficient farms and forgo the inestimable advantages of specialization. If men had no means to store value, i.e., to save, neither long-range planning nor exchange would be possible.

What medium of exchange will be acceptable to all participants in an economy is not determined arbitrarily. First, the medium of exchange should be durable. In a primitive society of meager wealth, wheat might be sufficiently durable to serve as a medium, since all exchanges would occur only during and immediately after the harvest, leaving no value-surplus to store. But where store-of-value considerations are important, as they are in richer, more civilized societies, the medium of exchange must be a durable commodity, usually a metal. A metal is generally chosen because it is homogeneous and divisible: every unit is the same as every other and it can be blended or formed in any quantity. Precious jewels, for example, are neither homogeneous nor divisible. More important, the commodity chosen as a medium must be a luxury. Human desires for luxuries are unlimited and, therefore, luxury goods are always in demand and will always be acceptable. Wheat is a luxury in underfed civilizations, but not in a prosperous society. Cigarettes ordinarily would not serve as money, but they did in post-World War II Europe where they were considered a luxury. The term “luxury good" implies scarcity and high unit value. Having a high unit value, such a good is easily portable; for instance, an ounce of gold is worth a half-ton of pig iron.

In the early stages of a developing money economy, several media of exchange might be used, since a wide variety of commodities would fulfill the foregoing conditions. However, one of the commodities will gradually displace all others, by being more widely acceptable. Preferences on what to hold as a store of value, will shift to the most widely acceptable commodity, which, in turn, will make it still more acceptable. The shift is progressive until that commodity becomes the sole medium of exchange. The use of a single medium is highly advantageous for the same reasons that a money economy is superior to a barter economy: it makes exchanges possible on an incalculably wider scale.

Whether the single medium is gold, silver, seashells, cattle, or tobacco is optional, depending on the context and development of a given economy. In fact, all have been employed, at various times, as media of exchange. Even in the present century, two major commodities, gold and silver, have been used as international media of exchange, with gold becoming the predominant one. Gold, having both artistic and functional uses and being relatively scarce, has significant advantages over all other media of exchange. Since the beginning of World War I, it has been virtually the sole international standard of exchange. If all goods and services were to be paid for in gold, large payments would be difficult to execute and this would tend to limit the extent of a society’s divisions of labor and specialization. Thus a logical extension of the creation of a medium of exchange is the development of a banking system and credit instruments (bank notes and deposits) which act as a substitute for, but are convertible into, gold.

A free banking system based on gold is able to extend credit and thus to create bank notes (currency) and deposits, according to the production requirements of the economy. Individual owners of gold are induced, by payments of interest, to deposit their gold in a bank (against which they can draw checks). But since it is rarely the case that all depositors want to withdraw all their gold at the same time, the banker need keep only a fraction of his total deposits in gold as reserves. This enables the banker to loan out more than the amount of his gold deposits (which means that he holds claims to gold rather than gold as security of his deposits). But the amount of loans which he can afford to make is not arbitrary: he has to gauge it in relation to his reserves and to the status of his investments.

When banks loan money to finance productive and profitable endeavors, the loans are paid off rapidly and bank credit continues to be generally available. But when the business ventures financed by bank credit are less profitable and slow to pay off, bankers soon find that their loans outstanding are excessive relative to their gold reserves, and they begin to curtail new lending, usually by charging higher interest rates. This tends to restrict the financing of new ventures and requires the existing borrowers to improve their profitability before they can obtain credit for further expansion. Thus, under the gold standard, a free banking system stands as the protector of an economy’s stability and balanced growth. When gold is accepted as the medium of exchange by most or all nations, an unhampered free international gold standard serves to foster a world-wide division of labor and the broadest international trade. Even though the units of exchange (the dollar, the pound, the franc, etc.) differ from country to country, when all are defined in terms of gold the economies of the different countries act as one-so long as there are no restraints on trade or on the movement of capital. Credit, interest rates, and prices tend to follow similar patterns in all countries. For example, if banks in one country extend credit too liberally, interest rates in that country will tend to fall, inducing depositors to shift their gold to higher-interest paying banks in other countries. This will immediately cause a shortage of bank reserves in the “easy money" country, inducing tighter credit standards and a return to competitively higher interest rates again.

A fully free banking system and fully consistent gold standard have not as yet been achieved. But prior to World War I, the banking system in the United States (and in most of the world) was based on gold and even though governments intervened occasionally, banking was more free than controlled. Periodically, as a result of overly rapid credit expansion, banks became loaned up to the limit of their gold reserves, interest rates rose sharply, new credit was cut off, and the economy went into a sharp, but short-lived recession. (Compared with the depressions of 1920 and 1932, the pre-World War I business declines were mild indeed.) It was limited gold reserves that stopped the unbalanced expansions of business activity, before they could develop into the post-World Was I type of disaster. The readjustment periods were short and the economies quickly reestablished a sound basis to resume expansion.

But the process of cure was misdiagnosed as the disease: if shortage of bank reserves was causing a business decline-argued economic interventionists-why not find a way of supplying increased reserves to the banks so they never need be short! If banks can continue to loan money indefinitely-it was claimed-there need never be any slumps in business. And so the Federal Reserve System was organized in 1913. It consisted of twelve regional Federal Reserve banks nominally owned by private bankers, but in fact government sponsored, controlled, and supported. Credit extended by these banks is in practice (though not legally) backed by the taxing power of the federal government. Technically, we remained on the gold standard; individuals were still free to own gold, and gold continued to be used as bank reserves. But now, in addition to gold, credit extended by the Federal Reserve banks (“paper reserves") could serve as legal tender to pay depositors.

When business in the United States underwent a mild contraction in 1927, the Federal Reserve created more paper reserves in the hope of forestalling any possible bank reserve shortage. More disastrous, however, was the Federal Reserve’s attempt to assist Great Britain who had been losing gold to us because the Bank of England refused to allow interest rates to rise when market forces dictated (it was politically unpalatable). The reasoning of the authorities involved was as follows: if the Federal Reserve pumped excessive paper reserves into American banks, interest rates in the United States would fall to a level comparable with those in Great Britain; this would act to stop Britain’s gold loss and avoid the political embarrassment of having to raise interest rates. The “Fed" succeeded; it stopped the gold loss, but it nearly destroyed the economies of the world, in the process. The excess credit which the Fed pumped into the economy spilled over into the stock market-triggering a fantastic speculative boom. Belatedly, Federal Reserve officials attempted to sop up the excess reserves and finally succeeded in braking the boom. But it was too late: by 1929 the speculative imbalances had become so overwhelming that the attempt precipitated a sharp retrenching and a consequent demoralizing of business confidence. As a result, the American economy collapsed. Great Britain fared even worse, and rather than absorb the full consequences of her previous folly, she abandoned the gold standard completely in 1931, tearing asunder what remained of the fabric of confidence and inducing a world-wide series of bank failures. The world economies plunged into the Great Depression of the 1930’s.

With a logic reminiscent of a generation earlier, statists argued that the gold standard was largely to blame for the credit debacle which led to the Great Depression. If the gold standard had not existed, they argued, Britain’s abandonment of gold payments in 1931 would not have caused the failure of banks all over the world. (The irony was that since 1913, we had been, not on a gold standard, but on what may be termed “a mixed gold standard"; yet it is gold that took the blame.) But the opposition to the gold standard in any form-from a growing number of welfare-state advocates-was prompted by a much subtler insight: the realization that the gold standard is incompatible with chronic deficit spending (the hallmark of the welfare state). Stripped of its academic jargon, the welfare state is nothing more than a mechanism by which governments confiscate the wealth of the productive members of a society to support a wide variety of welfare schemes. A substantial part of the confiscation is effected by taxation. But the welfare statists were quick to recognize that if they wished to retain political power, the amount of taxation had to be limited and they had to resort to programs of massive deficit spending, i.e., they had to borrow money, by issuing government bonds, to finance welfare expenditures on a large scale.

Under a gold standard, the amount of credit that an economy can support is determined by the economy’s tangible assets, since every credit instrument is ultimately a claim on some tangible asset. But government bonds are not backed by tangible wealth, only by the government’s promise to pay out of future tax revenues, and cannot easily be absorbed by the financial markets. A large volume of new government bonds can be sold to the public only at progressively higher interest rates. Thus, government deficit spending under a gold standard is severely limited. The abandonment of the gold standard made it possible for the welfare statists to use the banking system as a means to an unlimited expansion of credit. They have created paper reserves in the form of government bonds which-through a complex series of steps-the banks accept in place of tangible assets and treat as if they were an actual deposit, i.e., as the equivalent of what was formerly a deposit of gold. The holder of a government bond or of a bank deposit created by paper reserves believes that he has a valid claim on a real asset. But the fact is that there are now more claims outstanding than real assets. The law of supply and demand is not to be conned. As the supply of money (of claims) increases relative to the supply of tangible assets in the economy, prices must eventually rise. Thus the earnings saved by the productive members of the society lose value in terms of goods. When the economy’s books are finally balanced, one finds that this loss in value represents the goods purchased by the government for welfare or other purposes with the money proceeds of the government bonds financed by bank credit expansion.

In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.

This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists’ tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists’ antagonism toward the gold standard.René Cohrt
renecohrt
Medlem

Indlæg: 105
Tilmeldt: Man 31. Mar, 2008 17:59
Geografisk sted: Virum/København
Privat beskedEmailMSNM/WLMICQYIM

Mhp LMA prøv og gæt, hvorfor dette forum tiltrækker et flertal af hjernedøde, så skammeligt, at det faktisk ikke er ulejligheden værd at deltage bl.a. også fordi tonen også er fræk og uforskammet, formentlig fordi det også drejer sig om samfundsaffald,der knevrer med næbet.