Central Banks To Add To Gold Reserves russia is loading up

Man, who pissed in your corn flakes this morning...? And, for that matter, where did I ever say that Congress didn't have the power or authority to regulate currency, or make laws that are "necessary and proper" to fulfill any of its enumerated powers? I have "admitted" the obvious, dujac, long ago: the Federal Reserve System was put into being, by Congress, by liberal Democrat Woodrow Wilson and his klatsch of "progressive" colleagues exactly 100 years ago! I don't like the damn thing, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Hell, I don't like the "Devil", or "Evil", "Disease", "Poverty", or "Famine" either, but they exist, too.... So instead, why don't you carp at me about something that I've said or done instead of making stuff up? But, you can continue to cut-and-paste interesting snippets from American history and post them here if that entertains you....

 

I guess all these Fed papers are just lying to everyone, lol. Here's a recent article on why the quantity of reserves do not matter to banks.

Very good information in this paper.

http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/staff_reports/sr497.pdf

 

They are nuclear powers, and if the world economy destabilizes they wouldn't be forced to join with America as the reserve currency.

Gold helps during world wars, where money isn't converted anymore so they will be rich while the US will rely on paper money.

It depends what is being trade and bartered though, as Israel will still give us military access to the middle east for oil which is the most important commodity, more important than gold as it has energy uses.

 

Their conclusion...

It's becoming common knowledge amongst educated economists that the banking system simply does not work like the textbooks describe it. Even though many textbooks and articles and research papers still refer to our banking system operating in this fashion.

Reserves do not play any real role in the banking system any more other than allowing the Fed's to target their fed funds rate. Banks don't need reserves to lend, they don't need excess reserves to lend. They simply create deposits and loans. It's about time people become a little more educated.

 

but if paper money goes worthless in that global war, oil will have to paid with gold..and Russia/china needs that oil also and has little to barter like the us does.

watch this [video=youtube;Tz1oiWF85NE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tz1oiWF85NE[/video]​

 

you keep saying the the fed propped up the economy, like it's something unusual

but that's the fed's job, that's what they do for a living

did you miss the part where it said it's fictional?

 

look back at video time 1:05 here again [video=youtube;Tz1oiWF85NE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tz1oiWF85NE[/video] treasury bills
really is it as far fetch as you think it is.. lookie here
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...and-markets-as-it-happened-August-9-2013.html

 

it's propaganda and misinformation designed for a purpose

 

what about china calling for a new gold standard lately is that propaganda and misinformation too??
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Prepare-for-a-new-gold-standard-30212197.html

 

hong kong gold into the mainland
[video=youtube;TmCy3PYtOwE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmCy3PYtOwE[/video]

 

what a joke, you really don't get it do you?


Robert Samuelson: New gold standard not practical

"There is always a well-known solution to every human problem – neat, plausible and wrong." – H.L. Mencken, 1920

The gold standard is one of these "solutions." Let the economy turn ugly, and we soon hear that the gold standard can save us from ruin. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas is the gold standard's loudest champion, and it is probably as a sop to him and his followers that the Republican platform recommends that its revival be studied. Don't be fooled: The gold standard isn't coming back; its return would be a calamity.

Gold is imagined as a magical economic sedative, based on its scarcity. True, there isn't much gold. According to the World Gold Council, if you took all the gold mined since the beginning of time and formed it into a perfect cube, it would measure 67.7 feet on a side. This would slightly exceed the perimeter of the Washington Monument at its base and stand about one-eighth of its 555-foot height. But just how gold would induce economic confidence and stability is left unsaid.

Historically, gold's main appeal was to ensure stable money. Because its supply could not be rapidly increased, gold coin of fixed amounts of metal (called "specie," along with silver coin) would hold value as opposed to paper money that could be printed freely by reckless governments. This was a virtue; unfortunately it came with some vices.

Gold was cumbersome to carry. Its scarcity meant that as economies expanded and needed more cash for everyday business, the money supply often lagged. Too little money sometimes forced prices to decline ("deflation"), hurting debtors who had borrowed in more expensive currency. Gold's shortcomings inspired new forms of money – paper bank notes and checks. Under a gold standard, however, banks or governments had to exchange these for gold when asked. This seemed the best of both worlds: a money supply flexible enough to permit economic growth; the discipline of gold rigid enough to prevent high inflation.

It wasn't. In the late 1800s, many farmers were in revolt against the gold standard, which deflated crop prices and (thereby) magnified the weight of their mortgages. Business cycles and financial panics were frequent; short-term fluctuations in gold supply were one reason. Between 1879 and 1913, U.S. unemployment averaged 6.8 percent compared with 5.9 percent from 1946 to 2003 after gold had been abandoned, reports economist Michael Bordo of Rutgers University.

This happened in the Great Depression of the 1930s. Indeed, scholars – led by economic historians Barry Eichengreen of the University of California at Berkeley and Peter Temin of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology – argue convincingly that the gold standard explains the Depression's severity. To deter people from demanding gold, governments kept interest rates too high. In theory, this encouraged people to hold bank deposits and securities, which paid interest, rather than gold, which didn't. In practice, high interest rates aggravated the slump, raising joblessness and bank failures.
Great Britain went off gold in 1931. France left in 1936. President Franklin D. Roosevelt effectively ended the American gold standard in 1933, though there remained a partial substitute. (Individuals and companies could no longer convert dollars to gold, but foreign governments could at $35 per ounce. President Nixon halted this in 1971.)

It's hard to say what "returning to the gold standard" would mean today. Even true believers cannot think that, in the age of electronic money and plastic cards, we'll revert to an all gold-coin economy. Any new gold standard would involve metallic backing for money. But how much? As Eichengreen has noted in The National Interest, setting the dollars-to-gold conversion price too high would be inflationary – unleashing a flood tide of money. Setting it too low would restrict the supply of dollars and risk repeating the Depression's crushing deflation.

The arithmetic would be daunting, writes Julian Jessop of Capital Economics to clients. The United States holds gold reserves of 261 million ounces, the world's largest. The monetary base – cash in circulation plus banks' deposits at the Federal Reserve – is nearly $2.7 trillion. Backing all that money with gold would require a gold price of about $10,000 an ounce compared with today's price of roughly $1,600. This sort of change would rattle global financial markets.

It's hard to imagine a more sure-fire way of creating uncertainty and destroying confidence. If evidence of an incipient surge of inflation were obvious, gold's appeal might be somewhat understandable. But there's no such evidence. In 1980, there was a similar clamor for restoring gold's old role. A presidential commission was appointed – and recommended against it. History may repeat itself: A new gold standard would be so impractical that it could not overcome its own contradictions.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/gold-369936-standard-money.html

 

i got to check that out wonder who was on that NWO team..
https://www.aier.org/sites/default/files/images/stories/news/documents/anna-schwartz/GC-1.pdf

 

heres the list 2nd page
http://www.goldensextant.com/Resources PDF/Gold Commission Report Volume I.pdf

 

total nut case

 

I read the entire paper and nowhere did they say that banks can't or don't lend their excess reserves. In fact, they said just the opposite!

The banking sector lends the quantity of reserves it holds, M, to firms that buy goods from households, who deposit the reserves in the banking system.
-Page 15, Bank Lending in Times of Large Bank Reserves, NY FED

From the Cleveland Fed's Senior Economic Advisor:

They can lend excess reserves to other banks in the federal funds market, they can lend them to consumers or businesses, or they can purchase securities.
-The Federal Reserve’s Influence over Excess Reserves

From Senior Economists at the Richmond Fed:

The high level of excess reserves means that banks in aggregate do not have to increase their reserves before creating loans (and deposits); they can simply draw down their excess reserves.

...excess reserves can be turned into loans and deposits...
-Pages 2 & 3, Excess Reserves and the New Challenges for Monetary Policy

But I'm sure you know more about monetary policy than all these senior Fed economists...

LOL

 

At least he knows the difference between paper and metal.

 

Lmao!!! Do you even understand what they mean by "buy goods from households"?

They even go on to say

We show that without frictions, the amount of lending is independent of the
amount of reserves in the banking system

As in bank lending has absolutely nothing to do with the amount of reserves in the system

Like I said, this is just from the bank perspective relying on the money multiplier in which banks can lend excess reserves out 1/rr. They do not literally mean banks lend excess reserves to consumers.

LMAO!! Excess reserves can be turned into loans and deposits. That is the typical fractional reserve banking model. Not a single thing here says they lend excess reserves. It's more leveraging by creating loans and deposits which in essence turn the excess reserves in to required reserves.


This stuff is way way too far over your head.

 

again with the jokes

 

Not a joke at all. Coins are metal currency, USD are paper currency. Go brush up on your Constitutional law.

 

We'll just have to let the forum community decide who is right, you or the multiple fed analysts I've cited. They all say that excess reserves can be used to make loans. You want to wallow in semantics and say that just because they don't take the actual reserve and lend it out that somehow the underlying point I'm making is wrong. I'm sure anyone with half a brain will see through your word games.

 

it's money and you'd really have to be nut case to think the constitution says only coins can be legal tender

 

It's money that is made out of METAL, not PAPER. Apparently, you don't know the difference between the two.

 

money is an abstract concept and paper works better than metal

 

Has nothing to do with the language under discussion. The constitution clearly says COIN, which is METAL, not PAPER.

 

It's an exercise in mathematics and "creative" balance sheets, which, ultimately, are based on nothing but "faith and credit"... I doubt that even dujac would disagree with that. If I'm gullible then my gullibility is rooted in a much greater commitment to understanding HOW this Kabuki dance works, as I've said several times. I don't LIKE the damned central banking methodology, but I'll be candid enough to say that at this point we cannot return to a gold-standard. "Faith and credit", along with "smoke", "mirrors", "Kabuki dances", and other bull**** are all we have left. Or, maybe a little less darkly, it's like the first time you ever began riding your bicycle after the training wheels were taken off. Logically, the bike should fall down every time, but instead, with "velocity", you kept going and going and going. There, that's about as profound as I can get after I noticed that my analogies with electricity got no traction at all....

Got it, at last! Bernanke makes it possible for us to "ride the bicycle" (please note my comment about this above) without falling down. That's about the most cheritable assessment I can make of the thing. And I know we can't go back on the gold standard... not now, not ever. I think it would be helpful if Bernanke would go on TV in a special program and simply tell people, "Hey, guys, we aren't printing money... we're simply creating money that isn't REAL money so that the whole economy won't fall on its face." Next, I'd like for Obama, or whoever is really running this country now, to announce that all the criminals and idiot bastards who actually caused this economic tragedy are going to be rounded up and SHOT tomorrow morning....

Yes, jac... I got it the first two times you trumpeted this revelation around. Good job. Now, find something else to be noteworthy about....