possibly! imagine that, a monthly deduction from your "carbon account", just for being alive and breathing the air....
I didnt' realise until this morning that that membership of the IMF is disallowed for any country with a gold-back currency. I shouldn't have been surprised. Still trying to get my head around all the implications of this "condition".
Roswell, AFAIK, if the OZ government confiscates our Gold and/or Silver, they have to do that according to the Constitution "on just terms", which I assume means market value (Spot?) on that day. OC
reply to "thatguy". I stumbled across the following article by Ron Paul (US Senator)........ http://www.24hgold.com/english/news...contributor=Ron+Paul&article=1192339902G10020 Subsequently, with my interest piqued, I did a google search of "IMF membership gold-back currency" and came up with a large number of thought provoking links on the topic.
Its an assumption I'd rather not base my entire portfolio on. "On just terms" could equally be AUD$200/oz. There will be no public outcry to give the gov pause as non-stackers will see us as 'rich bastards trying to avoid paying their share'. At least until they try to sieze jewelery etc which a lot more non-stackers own.
Roswell, I think this actual question has already been fought out in the High Court, and the government cannot simply set an arbitrary sum far below the obvious market value. OC
I can see it now, similar to the Gun Amnesty, we hereby declare the Gold and Silver ownership illegal, you have 12 months to surrender all you have at 50% above spot
The USA has a similar provision in their Constitution, (we copied it when we composed our Constitution) and FDR was bound by it in 1933 when he confiscated the Gold. He paid the full going rate for it, US$22 I think. I don't think he gave them 12 months to hand it over though. OC
Why not a reserve based on a basket of commodity countries? If every currency up to this point that is backed by nothing has gone to zero (or close enough) then why not make a basket of currencies that come from countries that are perpetual exporters of raw materials? While it may not be a PM standard it is effectively just as good, as the world needs to grow they need raw materials. If there was ever a danger of default from one of the currencies in the basket, payment could be made in a mixture of materials such as Iron Ore, Coal, Copper etc etc etc. At least then it is backed by a "hard asset". Edit: The success of the next reserve currency will soley rely on restriction of a politicians ability to simply print it. You can have all the best intentions in the world but if it is open to inflating and Keynes type policies it is doomed to failure (quicker than other wise). Cheers Chris
To answer your query Mr Medved..... Ron Paul (US Senator) asked the question as recently as 2008 to the US congress ie http://www.24hgold.com/english/news...contributor=Ron+Paul&article=1192339902G10020 I believe the following is a direct cut and paste from the source itself...... http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/aa/aa04.htm (b) Under an international monetary system of the kind prevailing on January 1, 1976, exchange arrangements may include (i) the maintenance by a member of a value for its currency in terms of the special drawing right or another denominator, other than gold, selected by the member, or (ii) cooperative arrangements by which members maintain the value of their currencies in relation to the value of the currency or currencies of other members, or (iii) other exchange arrangements of a member's choice.
The USA was instrumental post WW2 in establishing both the IMF and the World Bank, with the US$ being made the reserve currency of the world. Admittedly, the US$ was originally backed $ for $ by gold. I believe the reason for the Americans abandoning the gold standard in 1978 are the very same reasons why the USA would fight tooth and nail to not have the gold standard re-introduced. Gold and the fiat US$ are effectively mortal enemies these days.
Here is a very interesting recent article with implications on gold backed currencies and nations that attempt to establish such. I make no opinion on the credibility of the article though. It is only food for your individual thought. http://goldsilver.com/video/must-wa...-plan-bomed-away-by-coalition-libyan-mission/
I'd very interested in reading the specifics of that ruling. Do you have a court case reference no.? A case name? Keywords or doctrines upheld? If you're right and there exists a legal precedent, it means the 'suspended' Section IV of the Banking Act 1959 will not be as devastating when it is re-enacted.
