% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Silver Wheaton Corp. Message Board

  • yourdeadmeat69 yourdeadmeat69 Aug 25, 2012 3:53 AM Flag

    Is a Gold standard too little too late?

    Republicans are allegedly reviewing a committee to review returning to a gold standard.

    In Sept 2009, the geniuses of Congress tightened credit standard requirements for getting a mortgage--after the loose standards of the Clinton era. Didn't fix gambling casino standards of banks, just fixed it so they "couldn't" rip of the country by giving loans to the indigent--the banks had proven that under duress of 6% commission, they'd destroyed the basis of real estate, the mortgage to own it, by defrauding its basis, the viability of the loan taker, his ability to pay.

    So they closed that barn door in Sept 2009--too little too late, they also closed the door on those at the new margin, alt A but for temporary exigencies, and all homeowners under water, to refi at lower rates. Real foreclosures and jingle mail ensued.

    So now, the very folks needing help are stuck outside the door closed to tantalizing lower rates--because the barn door has been closed behind them too little too late. Nobody prints money for Joe--just the banks get "liquidity", most of QEI and II lay reinvested back in the government, mortgage refi be damned, for just those folks who need relief.

    Same with money and the gold standard. It would slow, the drain of inflation on our money dramatically to plus or minus fifty percent--similar to that experienced first two hundred years our existence.

    Gold standard would probably be $3500 an ounce, exactly 100X the FDR years. Silver would be $75 an ounce. But what is the effect of closing the barn door to "fiat" CONTROL, or apparent control?

    That's TBD, and one place we need to figure out, using real human needs and emotions in the equation, before flipping that switch.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • It is congress that is incompetent in regulating trade. It is the negative trade balance and loss of taxes due to shipping jobs overseas that has put the country in the hole.


    • When it says foreign nations it means foreign nations. And several states means states and is treated separately as is indian tribes. To say that foreign did not mean foreign to the writers of the constitution is how fascist coeporists try to pervert the constitution.

    • “…no tariffs or excises could be imposed between the states to hinder trade…”

      And they are trying mightily to tax out of state Internet purchases. That is DEFINITELY against the Commerce Clause. In some states they’ve attempted to tax purchases made from Amazon because they have “store fronts” that are located in their states but use Amazon. Amazon’s reaction was to close down store front vendors in any states where those vendors are physically located. If you remember some time back the politicians, in order to encourage Internet use, were making it a tax free zone, which it should be anyway under the Commerce Clause. Then the brick and mortar stores started crying foul and ever since have been on a mission for sales tax collections on Internet purchases. They don’t want to seem to make a Federal case out of it though because they know they would lose in court because the Commerce Clause specifically calls that a trade barrier.

      But, who knows? As crooked as the governments have become they might just chuck the Constitution, just as they’ve done to the money. The criminals have floated to the top of the pile in such numbers that the rule of law seems to be going the way of the dinosaur. It doesn’t seem to make any difference whether it is an “ist” or an “ism” in the political sense, which some try to make a big deal out of any differences, when there are none when it comes to the fundamental issue of personal liberty and freedom.

    • Note that the wording is "with" foreign Nations and is "among" the several States and then "with" again when dealing with the sovereign Indian Nations.

      Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 in its entirety, not conveniently abbreviated with deceit in mind:

      "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

      When you are considering the "United States", which is not a nation in it's own right, but rather a confederacy of sovereign nations, the individual "States" are foreign nations. After all, the States MADE (and since then have joined) the confederacy, not the other way around as most believe today.

      Now that you know that, what do you now suspect that a non-resident alien might be when one is contemplating the United States?

      The Founders relied on Vattel's "Law of Nations".

      Most Americans, apparently you as well, have never heard of the book.

      Word up:

    • The original: United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,

      Don't you mean that you corporate facists are trying to pervert the clause. How does regulate commerce with foreign nations get to mean no barriers between states?

    • The talk is just that, an election year tactic to focus talk on them dollar-weakening dems.

      "But what is the effect of closing the barn door to "fiat" CONTROL, or apparent control?"

      It would amount to a "hard reset" and deleveraging of the world's most important economy with waves of unforeseeable repercussions. Never happen.

      What IS interesting and MAY happen is gold being declared a Tier 1 asset by banks either by decree, default, or de facto.

      It would shore up banks, result in even more net buying, and not be so generally disruptive to the whole system if it ever become "that" kind of money.

    • Actually, the original intent of the now criminally applied Commerce Clause, was to "make commerce regular". It was supposed to outlaw any barriers to trade between the states themselves, i.e., no tariffs or excises could be imposed between the states to hinder trade.

      The socialists have perverted that to which you take issue with today.

    • We are pretty close to George Orweels 1984 world. The Costitution specifically says that congree has the power to regulate trade. In other words free trade is against the constitution. Now listen to how many free trade advocates say that we should be following the constitution. Orporation with no power delegated by the constitution are now citizens whether born in the USA or created in a foreign country. They all all rights of citizenship and none of the duties or responsibilty of citizenship. You can say they are really super citizens.

      Are you familiar how marine veteran Brandon J. Raub was locked up for writings on his Facebook page oppsoing corporate fascism. The sheeple are suppose to do as taught. That is to oppse socialism, vote against their own interests and bow down to corporate fascism.

    • Someday it will be most interesting to see if anyone else pulls a quote from “The Creature from Jekyll Island”. There are many on topic quotes that could be posted on this message board.

      It will have to be assumed in the meantime that no one can gather enough interest to do so for the benefit of others, and no one has any problem relying on their own ignorance. The title of this topic is a case in point. A “gold standard” implies legal tender. Legal tender is what got us in our long running mess under control of the banksters. Again, to repeat, gold is a commodity and doesn’t need to be declared “legal”. The only ones that are insistent about doing so are those that want to attach a dollar value to gold or silver so the clock can start over again headed for another round of manipulation. Apparently most on this message board consider that to be a good idea and don’t see through what has already been done by the banksters at the onset of this country’s founding within the US Constitution.

      Price stability in our current world of instant worldwide communications is even more possible today than it was 225 years ago, absent “legal tender” requirements and threats of gold confiscation. As always, it is the control freak factor that stands in the way. Madison and Jefferson understood this.

      Is there no one on this message board that can understand this, or is there a bit of the desire to control others a major consideration by backing a concept that favors such control? There seems to be a glimmer of understanding in some, and more so in others, that the concept of legal tender is the source of our current difficulties, rather than market valuation of mediums of exchange. Two Hundred plus years of history under the control of "legal tender" should have taught even the dimmest bulbs that this is a bankster plot because the current power structure cannot be trusted under a legal tender system.

      From “The Creature from Jekyll Island is the following quote:

      “…Perhaps the greatest example of a nation with sound money, however, was the Byzantine Empire. Building on the sound monetary tradition of Greece, the emperor Constantine ordered the creation of a. new gold piece called the solidus and a silver piece called the miliarense. The gold weight of the solidus soon became fixed at 65 grains and was minted at that standard for the next eight-hundred years. Its quality was so dependable that it was freely accepted, under the name bezant, from China to Brittany, from the Baltic Sea to Ethiopia….”

    • View More Messages
14.81+0.69(+4.89%)10:24 AMEST