During one of the presidential debate one wise politician reminded
Americans that the cost of a gallon of gas is the same as it was in
1913. The current value of a pre 1965 dime (90% silver) is 2.87. If we
were to look at a cost of gasoline today at 3.53 subtracting the state
and federal taxes that didn't exist in 1913 you'll see the price has
been basically the same for the last 109 years.
When we give scumbags like Romney,Obama,Burnanke and the central banks
the power to devalue the dollar we end up with a currency that's lost
97% of its value in that same time period. It should be noted that
this manufactured inflation (the devaluation of the dollar) is a tax
which mostly effects the poor.
Even though the gold standard has it's problems could it be worse than
the tax these leaders have levy on the American people? Maybe the best
way to hold these sociopaths in check is to have a competing currency.
Let me start by saying, I think that we should look at moving back to the gold standard.
It is important however, to understand why we stopped using the gold standard in the first place. It was not to empower the Fed as many suggest. The reason was because of an agreement that we entered into post world war two known as Bretton Woods in 1944 that tied the world monetary system to the US Dollar. This was a combined reaction to the Great Depression and the aftermath of World War II and led to the establishment of the International Monetary Fund (IMF)
Under Bretton Woods any nation could in fact exchange dollars for gold. The system also depended on US spending and maintaining a trade deficit to work. The combination of the Vietnam War and the Great Society spending during the Johnson administration without increased government revenue in combination with Bretton Woods caused the US Dollar to be artificially inflated. Add to that, the fact that under the agreement that any country could exchange dollars for gold at what was called a peg value ($35.00/ounce) caused many nations to hoard gold by exchanging US Dollars. Many countries did this especially France which cashed in just about every dollar they held. This caused our gold reserve to drop from 55% to 22% in short order and further down to 16%, all the while we were amassing huge trade and spending deficits.
In a move to stave this off, Nixon unilaterally withdrew from Bretton Woods in a move called the ‘Nixon Shock’ so named because he consulted no other foreign governments or for that matter our own State Department. The gold standard was removed to allow the US dollar to decrease in value thus allowing for equalization of the trade deficit and making US products less expensive than foreign competitors. It worked until the Oil Embargo of 1973 and then reversed because spending did not slow and that rekindled the US at a trade deficit.
It was a bit more complicated than that, but the bottom line is that the uncontrolled spending spree from 1964 to 1972 together with the erosion of the US gold reserve due to the pegged exchange rate forced to movement from gold standard in order to balance the trade deficit.
And Terry, just for your info, one of the planks for this year’s GOP platform is going to be relooking the gold standard as well as, stricter adherence to the constitution, internet freedoms and a few other suggestions by that ‘Wise Politician’ that you referred too.
Like many of our economic woes, this is all a result of politicans good intent with out forethought of consequence.
Terry, can you show the math for your conclusion that the price of a gallon of gas is the same as it was in 1913?
In the brief research I just did, I found:
In 1913, gas was .08/gallon. Adding 15% to that price to account for taxes, then adjusting it for inflation (using an online inflation calculator based on CPI as of 8/15/12) would make that same gallon of gas $2.08 in today's dollars. That is $1.45 less that the current price of $3.53 you listed.
Also, I don't understand how the current melt value of a pre-1965 dime (90% silver) relates to the equation. In 1913, a 1913 dime (also 90% silver) would have only been worth it's face value, or slightly less, because the value of silver was only $1.29 in 1913.
The gold standard would definitely hold down spending, but I think the main problem is attempted management of the entire nation by one centralized federal government. De-centralizing power to smaller entities will bring spending down, and productivity up and the dollar will be stronger. I'd also like to see competing currencies especially local or regional types which could encourage more bartering of services.
Dave I have to disagree with you about local and regional currencies, buty I do agree with decentrailzing the bank.
We are in fact a nation, and in that one currency should be standard simply for the sake of cohesion and to limit intra state or intra region dispute.
By returning to the gold standard, there would be no need for a central bank.
I stand by my core belief, the Federal Government should be limited to printing currency (Based on the gold Standard not manetary policy), defending our borders, conducting foriegn policy and protecting states from inequities (Establishing interstate commerce and regulating it) all else should fall on the States.
Joanne, I don't know that the gasoline taxes are computed as a percentage either. I think it is a set amount per gallon. I don't have time to research it, whatever it is it's too damn high.
Still Dave, I don't see where a regional currency would do anything short of creating a mirad of inter State commerce problems which would in effect require more federal intervention
Dave,
You could see NY spend more than it can afford (like now) and then inflate it's currency. Then you could have PA refuse to accept it. Even NY might refuse to accept its own money for taxes. But how would your idea work?
That's what the US currency would still be for, those who don't accept a regional currency. What it does is encourage money to stay within a region, thereby strengthening that particular economy.
Mark, I'm surprised you think that regional / local communities can't work out trade without fed involvement. I surely do not have all the answers, but totalitarian control over economics ain't a good one.
There is a huge differenc between localism as an Ideal and regionalism.
Regionalism; which by the way is advocated for by many Obama staffers like Valarie Jared, centers around a metropolitan area i.e. a larger city. All revenue and control centered there.
Localism on the other hand deals more with the community and diffusing control of day to day issues to the community.
Currency on the other hand is related to trade and commerce, get rid of any centralized control other than printing a consistant tender. Let gold be the value (or monetary control)
There are just too many commerce issues that would arise from 100's possibly thoasands on different currencies nationwide.
I have heard of Berkshires before Dave, just because the NY Times dubs it as a great innovation doesn't mean that it is.
We live in an ultra mobile society, a local currency allows for tiered pricing for one thing, sort of an out of region tarrif, which creates intersate commerce and possibly even constitutional issues
Also what you in effect do, is create sevaral small nations and erode the constitutional binding
Dave, they are computed as a set amount per gallon, but it worked out to about 15% so that's why I used a percentage. I should have indicated that, thanks for pointing it out.
Dave I did a little research into the actual usage of berkshires.
Since 2006 over 2 Million berkshires have been printed
As of last month, only 180,000 are in circulation in a geographic area encompassing over 125,000 people, or 1.44 berkshire per resident.
The concept was built entirely to stimulate individuals to shop and buy locally. The site that you linked to is registered to berkshire INC. (The printers of berkshires)
But I digress, our spending woes have nothing to do with currency, nothing to do the gold standard (Although I still support that) but with the concept of baseline budgeting on the Federal and on some State levels.
Berkshires amount to nothing more that the coupon books you can buy at local fundraisers, just a tool to stimulate local economies. I would rather just buy the coupon book
During one of the
During one of the presidential debate one wise politician reminded
Americans that the cost of a gallon of gas is the same as it was in
1913. The current value of a pre 1965 dime (90% silver) is 2.87. If we
were to look at a cost of gasoline today at 3.53 subtracting the state
and federal taxes that didn't exist in 1913 you'll see the price has
been basically the same for the last 109 years.
When we give scumbags like Romney,Obama,Burnanke and the central banks
the power to devalue the dollar we end up with a currency that's lost
97% of its value in that same time period. It should be noted that
this manufactured inflation (the devaluation of the dollar) is a tax
which mostly effects the poor.
Even though the gold standard has it's problems could it be worse than
the tax these leaders have levy on the American people? Maybe the best
way to hold these sociopaths in check is to have a competing currency.
Let me start by saying, I
Let me start by saying, I think that we should look at moving back to the gold standard.
It is important however, to understand why we stopped using the gold standard in the first place. It was not to empower the Fed as many suggest. The reason was because of an agreement that we entered into post world war two known as Bretton Woods in 1944 that tied the world monetary system to the US Dollar. This was a combined reaction to the Great Depression and the aftermath of World War II and led to the establishment of the International Monetary Fund (IMF)
Under Bretton Woods any nation could in fact exchange dollars for gold. The system also depended on US spending and maintaining a trade deficit to work. The combination of the Vietnam War and the Great Society spending during the Johnson administration without increased government revenue in combination with Bretton Woods caused the US Dollar to be artificially inflated. Add to that, the fact that under the agreement that any country could exchange dollars for gold at what was called a peg value ($35.00/ounce) caused many nations to hoard gold by exchanging US Dollars. Many countries did this especially France which cashed in just about every dollar they held. This caused our gold reserve to drop from 55% to 22% in short order and further down to 16%, all the while we were amassing huge trade and spending deficits.
In a move to stave this off, Nixon unilaterally withdrew from Bretton Woods in a move called the ‘Nixon Shock’ so named because he consulted no other foreign governments or for that matter our own State Department. The gold standard was removed to allow the US dollar to decrease in value thus allowing for equalization of the trade deficit and making US products less expensive than foreign competitors. It worked until the Oil Embargo of 1973 and then reversed because spending did not slow and that rekindled the US at a trade deficit.
It was a bit more complicated than that, but the bottom line is that the uncontrolled spending spree from 1964 to 1972 together with the erosion of the US gold reserve due to the pegged exchange rate forced to movement from gold standard in order to balance the trade deficit.
And Terry, just for your info, one of the planks for this year’s GOP platform is going to be relooking the gold standard as well as, stricter adherence to the constitution, internet freedoms and a few other suggestions by that ‘Wise Politician’ that you referred too.
Like many of our economic woes, this is all a result of politicans good intent with out forethought of consequence.
Terry, can you show the math
Terry, can you show the math for your conclusion that the price of a gallon of gas is the same as it was in 1913?
In the brief research I just did, I found:
In 1913, gas was .08/gallon. Adding 15% to that price to account for taxes, then adjusting it for inflation (using an online inflation calculator based on CPI as of 8/15/12) would make that same gallon of gas $2.08 in today's dollars. That is $1.45 less that the current price of $3.53 you listed.
Also, I don't understand how the current melt value of a pre-1965 dime (90% silver) relates to the equation. In 1913, a 1913 dime (also 90% silver) would have only been worth it's face value, or slightly less, because the value of silver was only $1.29 in 1913.
JoAnne, first you have to
JoAnne, first you have to inflate the 1913 .08 THEN add 15% tax. Your calculations will be a bit different.
The gold standard would
The gold standard would definitely hold down spending, but I think the main problem is attempted management of the entire nation by one centralized federal government. De-centralizing power to smaller entities will bring spending down, and productivity up and the dollar will be stronger. I'd also like to see competing currencies especially local or regional types which could encourage more bartering of services.
Dave I have to disagree with
Dave I have to disagree with you about local and regional currencies, buty I do agree with decentrailzing the bank.
We are in fact a nation, and in that one currency should be standard simply for the sake of cohesion and to limit intra state or intra region dispute.
By returning to the gold standard, there would be no need for a central bank.
I stand by my core belief, the Federal Government should be limited to printing currency (Based on the gold Standard not manetary policy), defending our borders, conducting foriegn policy and protecting states from inequities (Establishing interstate commerce and regulating it) all else should fall on the States.
Thanks Dave. Calculated that
Thanks Dave. Calculated that way, the price of a 1913 gallon of gas would be $2.13, which would be $1.40 less than today's $3.53.
Mark; I'm not advocating
Mark; I'm not advocating eliminating American Currency, just more local currencies as well.
Joanne, I don't know that the
Joanne, I don't know that the gasoline taxes are computed as a percentage either. I think it is a set amount per gallon. I don't have time to research it, whatever it is it's too damn high.
Still Dave, I don't see where
Still Dave, I don't see where a regional currency would do anything short of creating a mirad of inter State commerce problems which would in effect require more federal intervention
Dave, You could see NY spend
Dave,
You could see NY spend more than it can afford (like now) and then inflate it's currency. Then you could have PA refuse to accept it. Even NY might refuse to accept its own money for taxes. But how would your idea work?
That's what the US currency
That's what the US currency would still be for, those who don't accept a regional currency. What it does is encourage money to stay within a region, thereby strengthening that particular economy.
Mark, I'm surprised you think that regional / local communities can't work out trade without fed involvement. I surely do not have all the answers, but totalitarian control over economics ain't a good one.
Look this over, it's working right now.
http://www.berkshares.org/whatareberkshares.htm
There is a huge differenc
There is a huge differenc between localism as an Ideal and regionalism.
Regionalism; which by the way is advocated for by many Obama staffers like Valarie Jared, centers around a metropolitan area i.e. a larger city. All revenue and control centered there.
Localism on the other hand deals more with the community and diffusing control of day to day issues to the community.
Currency on the other hand is related to trade and commerce, get rid of any centralized control other than printing a consistant tender. Let gold be the value (or monetary control)
There are just too many commerce issues that would arise from 100's possibly thoasands on different currencies nationwide.
Power should be in the vote NOT the wallet
Dave, Are there any current
Dave,
Are there any current major economies with your model?
I have heard of Berkshires
I have heard of Berkshires before Dave, just because the NY Times dubs it as a great innovation doesn't mean that it is.
We live in an ultra mobile society, a local currency allows for tiered pricing for one thing, sort of an out of region tarrif, which creates intersate commerce and possibly even constitutional issues
Also what you in effect do, is create sevaral small nations and erode the constitutional binding
Dave, they are computed as a
Dave, they are computed as a set amount per gallon, but it worked out to about 15% so that's why I used a percentage. I should have indicated that, thanks for pointing it out.
Dave I did a little research
Dave I did a little research into the actual usage of berkshires.
Since 2006 over 2 Million berkshires have been printed
As of last month, only 180,000 are in circulation in a geographic area encompassing over 125,000 people, or 1.44 berkshire per resident.
The concept was built entirely to stimulate individuals to shop and buy locally. The site that you linked to is registered to berkshire INC. (The printers of berkshires)
But I digress, our spending woes have nothing to do with currency, nothing to do the gold standard (Although I still support that) but with the concept of baseline budgeting on the Federal and on some State levels.
Berkshires amount to nothing more that the coupon books you can buy at local fundraisers, just a tool to stimulate local economies. I would rather just buy the coupon book