WWII Germany printed curency out of it's value. Which is what the U.S. is doing now. Coming up with money that doesn't even exist yet.
There're rumors that if things fail Washington will create a multi-national monetary sytem yielding a new dollar that will based on that economy that certain qualifying coutries can and will use..Some thing like the E.U.
Will the NWO be after...? I forsee the future union of the E.U. and this new "Western" dollar.
Stay tuned, folks!
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not since about 1933.
I think they should bring back the backing. Should curb rapid value fluctuations.
The backing should be diversified to help prevent massive fluctuations that can occur.
I know the benefits of no backed tender, but what are the negatives?
What are the negatives of a backed tender? What about the positives?
If someone could educate me, and point me in the right direction, that'd be nice. I could make a better assessment.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I know the benefits of no backed tender, but what are the negatives?What are the negatives of a backed tender? What about the positives?
The positives and negatives of not having backing seem to be the same thing. Namely flexibility. Gold standard has trouble responding to economic problems but it's also less vulnerable to them for the same reason.
The biggest drawback to back tender that I know is, is that it would make gold prohibitively expensive.
Originally posted by BicnarokWell, the companies can really demand whatever they want for their products. They have "faith" in the money, so they accept it in exchange for their goods and services.
All this making money from no where raises the question "is it really worth anything" and what' s the point of companys making goods if they are worth imaginary money
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The biggest drawback to back tender that I know is, is that it would make gold prohibitively expensive.
But isn't that good? Wouldn't A diverse backing also protect against market flucuations? Wouldn't it also curb out of control inflation?
Take the Pound problem experienced recently because of silver dropping. If they had a diverse backing, the hit wouldn't have been so severe.
There are theories out that that no backing is a conspiracy perpetuated by that administration's politicians to make it easier to control things from behind the scenes. We would need Deano for further clarification, but I think there has got to be some sort of truth behind that. (Corruption, at some level, some where.)
Originally posted by dadudemon
But isn't that good?
Raising the price of gold dramatically is a bad thing if you like computers.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Wouldn't A diverse backing also protect against market flucuations? Wouldn't it also curb out of control inflation?
It should, I see no reason that it would not. But then again I'm not an economist, there's almost certainly some line of logic that says backed currency is a bad idea. I believe the problem lies in the use of mining futures to back the economy. There's something called "pure strain gold" that's supposed to avoid that, but I have no idea how.
Originally posted by dadudemon
There are theories out that that no backing is a conspiracy perpetuated by that administration's politicians to make it easier to control things from behind the scenes. We would need Deano for further clarification, but I think there has got to be some sort of truth behind that. (Corruption, at some level, some where.)
Which is one of the more "realistic" conspiracy theories. An unbacked currency actually is much easier to control than one that is backed by a gold standard. In fact that's is acknowledged as the point of not having backing: when economies turn bad an unbacked currency can alter the market to stabilize things more quickly (in theory).