Should Gold be the 'world currency'? Yes or No (divisibility aside)

"A single united currency that everybody in every country uses worldwide. The currency is fungible worldwide.
In the context of those whom fear a 'world currency' (and this is the context of this thread) - this means an enforced 'world currency'.
The only currency accepted by institutions, corporations, businesses and Govts globally."


"No I can't see that ever happening - not unless there is a single world government."



I think that is the ultimate dream of the UN, the EU, and IMF etc, but I think it will never happen, they will try but will fail. Three hundred million private firearms in the US will guarantee that it will fail. Americans will NEVER accept One World Government! I really doubt that Australians would either.

What i DO expect is that the next Reserve Currency will be gold/silver backed, and that currency will probably be the YUAN. Gold and silver will have to be revalued at about 10 times current spot to make it work, US$1000 an ounce will not be nearly enough.

Personally, I thing the days of fiat paper money are numbered, and from its ashes will rise the Phoenix of gold.

JMO



OC
 
trew said:
Load of Bullion said:
trew said:
I think you need to define what you mean by 'world currency'
Click to expand...

A single united currency that everybody in every country uses worldwide. The currency is fungible worldwide.
In the context of those whom fear a 'world currency' (and this is the context of this thread) - this means an enforced 'world currency'.
The only currency accepted by institutions, corporations, businesses and Govts globally.
Click to expand...

No I can't see that ever happening - not unless there is a single world government.
Click to expand...

Some people fear a potential future world govt scenario along with a 'world currency'. A "New World Order" type situation, or a building block towards it.
In theory, a 'world currency' could be implemented across the planet in a similar scenario to the Euro currency vs Europe at the moment.
Before reaching the stage of 'world currency' there might be intermediary currencies like the Euro and potentials like 'Amero'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_monetary_union
A future 'world government'/New World Order is feared by some for the worlds future.
The "New World Order" phrase has been uttered by various political leaders including George Herbert Walker Bush.
The Nazis could have potentially installed a 'world currency' given a different WW2 outcome. I could have been using such currency during my life thus far, having been born post WW2.

Load of Bullion said:
I've come across people whom are concerned that Bitcoin could be a 'world currency' and that this is a concern.
A concern regarding a 'world currency' may be due to a potential nefarious authoritarian control of the currency and perhaps other reasons I'm not aware of (ya..well...deflation or inflation etc).
Click to expand...

For many people a potential 'world currency' is surely of little concern as it is deemed to be highly unlikely to ever eventuate. Others are concerned, and look for potentials that could lead towards a 'world currency'.
 
I think we abolish the world reserve currency and do away will ALL Banking and Finance regulations globally at the same time and then just let the free market decide.

It would make for a very interesting decade of strange Barter arrangement until a consensus is formed on what is the best currency / currencies.

We may end up with Bitcoin trading between one set of countries, Gold for another, Oil for another, Energy Units for another. Then within the countries currencies may differ per regions, Fiat in one region, Bitcoin in another, Rum in other, Gem stones for another, Silver for another.

All that matters is there is a general consensus of value between buyer and seller.
 
Argument flawed from the get go. "Divisibility aside" you can't just brush that aside.

Also ask anyone outside the Internet about Bitcoin.... *crickets*
 
Load of Bullion said:
Question: 1) Should gold be the 'world currency'?. (beyond issues of divisibility) Yes or No
Click to expand...
Yes
Load of Bullion said:
Question: 4) What do you suggest?
Click to expand...
I don't think just being 'backed by gold' and the gold held in some bank somewhere is the answer. Because "Whoever holds the gold makes the rules." So we would be no better off. Still subject to corruption.
IMHO if it were to be put back as currency it would have to be in the actual coinage. Even if they only contain a very small percentage. With todays tech it could really also be added to the notes, similar to the metal thread thingy that used to run through the older notes before we went to plastic which could be added in that clear window thing. - This way the 'PEOPLE' hold the gold & not some corrupt entity.
 
We are just chasing shadows.
The days of gold as a world currency are dead and the dust and ashes from the funeral pyre have been spread far and wide.
There will never be a consensus amongst all countries to begin all over again.
Even if there was, the same problems that existed when it was a currency begin all over again.
The problem is always government, not the currency.
So it is human nature that has to change..........good luck with that.
 
It does NOT have to be a WORLD currency, it only has to back a RESERVE currency!

...to facilitate world trade and commerce.



OC
 
Gold is already the world's reserve currency. 12,500 years of human experience has proved this.

Gresham's law means that there can be no other lasting substitute for a global currency. No matter how much one particular group wants an alternative, as a whole humans have chosen gold as the best thing to hold in reserve yet also easily liquidated like currency when needed.

At today's rate of mining (2500T/year) there is already 70 years worth (165,000T) being held in reserve. Less than 2% of that global gold stock is traded each year, more than 98% is being held year after year, decade after decade. Paper bugs that think that global gold stock will be liquidated so people/countries can hold dollars/SDR's in reserve instead are living in an illusion. Gresham's law also explains why paper gold and ETF's are being sold while physical gold is being bought, also why the gold price is falling while it's subjective value is rising.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham's_law

This all means that eventually . . . . {
 
Increasingly, electronic payment is taking over, buying online, credit cards etc. It is more convenient, fast, less subject to fraud and you can keep better track of where everything is being spent.

My boss doesn't give me money at the end of each week, it goes straight into my bank account. No one is actually going to go around carrying gold and silver coins, we are not pirates.

The idea of having your currency backed by something more than the Government's word is nice. As long as the gold is warehoused and you have a receipt for that gold, you can use the receipt as a form of money. The receipt can be denominated in any denomination you want, so if you have 1 ounce in the warehouse you can ask for 100x 1/100 ounce banknotes which you can use to buy stuff with.

The problem with having a gold backed currency is that countries like Australia will do nothing but mine gold, all other industry will fall by the wayside, after all, you only manufacture goods to get money, if you could get money out of the ground you wouldn't go through the hassle of making stuff for it.

Poor countries would get poorer if they didn't have their own gold in the ground, they would become the slaves to countries like Australia and South Africa etc.

All in all, I say let's have some competing currencies and let the market decide (I feel bad for people holding the unbacked currencies when they fail)
 
Absolutely not.. money needs to be plentiful in good supply (but not infinite).

Base metals are better suited, or something of value and scarcity that cannot be cornered.. having gold standard would be elitist and would constrict the money supply too much.. even silver is too scarce now for a world currency..

Id go for Col Coin or Pennies.. Like Fiat but not centralized and not born as debt.. so we trade in it to our mutual advantage and no one becomes a debt slave

1for1
 
Jislizard said:
The problem with having a gold backed currency is that countries like Australia will do nothing but mine gold, all other industry will fall by the wayside, after all, you only manufacture goods to get money, if you could get money out of the ground you wouldn't go through the hassle of making stuff for it.
Click to expand...

Like what's happening now? :cool:


Jislizard said:
Poor countries would get poorer if they didn't have their own gold in the ground, they would become the slaves to countries like Australia and South Africa etc.
Click to expand...

They would at first, but as you say, a country like Australia would not manufacture goods, preferring to mine it's currency and other items of value. We would then sell these goods as a hoard of gold is not much good unless you spend it to meet your needs. Countries like Bangladesh and Burma would use their market advantage in cheap labour in order to produce products that are then sold to the gold rich countries. gold flows out of the coffers of the richer countries into the coffers of the poorer - ad long as there is a demand for what they produce. As Australia's gold flows offshore, the amount of capital available declines, and manufacturing industries become more attractive from a labour price perspective.


Jislizard said:
All in all, I say let's have some competing currencies and let the market decide (I feel bad for people holding the unbacked currencies when they fail)
Click to expand...

The strongest currency will always prevail in the face of competing currencies under a free market. If it's not backed by gold what else is there?

1for1 said:
Absolutely not.. money needs to be plentiful in good supply (but not infinite).
Click to expand...

Why does it have to be? What do you define as plentiful?


1for1 said:
Base metals are better suited, or something of value and scarcity that cannot be cornered..
Click to expand...

Base metals have been used, but by their nature they are unsuited because they deteriorate.

1for1 said:
having gold standard would be elitist and would constrict the money supply too much.. even silver is too scarce now for a world currency..
1for1
Click to expand...

In what way is it elitist? If you mean that gold is currently held in the hands of only a few, that doesn't mean it's elitist. BTC are not elitist, yet the vast majority of the world's population own none.

A gold backed currency by its very nature would spread gold throughout society. A common labourer who possesses little or no gold other than the wedding ring he wears would trade his labour hours for a currency that can be redeemed if he wishes for gold. Or he may just choose to buy pies and piss it up against the wall.
 
Load of Bullion said:
A single united currency that everybody in every country uses worldwide. The currency is fungible worldwide.
In the context of those whom fear a 'world currency' (and this is the context of this thread) - this means an enforced 'world currency'.
The only currency accepted by institutions, corporations, businesses and Govts globally.
Click to expand...
Given this qualification, then "Yes" I'd prefer gold/silver to be the enforced world currency (divisibility is not an issue).

Besides that (ie without enforcement), then I agree with you that people should be free to decide for themselves within a free-market situation where various options can flourish.
 
Jislizard said:
...after all, you only manufacture goods to get money, if you could get money out of the ground you wouldn't go through the hassle of making stuff for it.
Click to expand...
People make goods and services so that we can have goods and services to consume. Currency is required to (relatively) efficiently provide price signals to aid in the clearing of scarce goods and services. While currency has value in and of itself there will be an incentive to supply this good to market as well but there isn't enough new gold to mine at efficient prices to encourage a mass shift of all other production toward currency production. Even a ten-fold increase in labour devoted to gold production would hardly destroy all other activities.
 
bordsilver said:
... but there isn't enough new gold to mine at efficient prices to encourage a mass shift of all other production toward currency production...
Click to expand...

Would this be some kind of inflation? If gold/money became scarcer to dig up it would be worth more or go up in value?
 
bordsilver said:
Jislizard said:
...after all, you only manufacture goods to get money, if you could get money out of the ground you wouldn't go through the hassle of making stuff for it.
Click to expand...
People make goods and services so that we can have goods and services to consume.
Click to expand...

But if we dug money out of the ground we could pay other people to make the goods for us, and if they are overseas it will be cheaper than making them ourselves. Especially if you factor in the loss of revenue that we would have had if we had been digging money out of the ground instead of wasting time making stuff.

My suggestion was that to get money you could either manufacture stuff and sell it for gold, or just dig gold out of the ground and skip the making stuff part. You still end up with gold.

We would still have the service industry who would need to work for gold, however from what I hear anecdotally, most people in the service industry decided to head off to the mines to make some real money.

Although not all industry would be able to shift to gold production I was under the impression that mining was already the biggest industry in Australia, followed by horse racing. Industry is already being lost to cheap labour overseas so really digging stuff out of the ground is the only area where we would be competitive.
 
Jislizard said:
bordsilver said:
... but there isn't enough new gold to mine at efficient prices to encourage a mass shift of all other production toward currency production...
Click to expand...

Would this be some kind of inflation? If gold/money became scarcer to dig up it would be worth more or go up in value?
Click to expand...
Yes. New currency production is inflationary. As it becomes scarcer (and assuming economic growth continues) there would be deflation.
 
Jislizard said:
bordsilver said:
Jislizard said:
...after all, you only manufacture goods to get money, if you could get money out of the ground you wouldn't go through the hassle of making stuff for it.
Click to expand...
People make goods and services so that we can have goods and services to consume.
Click to expand...

But if we dug money out of the ground we could pay other people to make the goods for us, and if they are overseas it will be cheaper than making them ourselves. Especially if you factor in the loss of revenue that we would have had if we had been digging money out of the ground instead of wasting time making stuff.

My suggestion was that to get money you could either manufacture stuff and sell it for gold, or just dig gold out of the ground and skip the making stuff part. You still end up with gold.

We would still have the service industry who would need to work for gold, however from what I hear anecdotally, most people in the service industry decided to head off to the mines to make some real money.

Although not all industry would be able to shift to gold production I was under the impression that mining was already the biggest industry in Australia, followed by horse racing. Industry is already being lost to cheap labour overseas so really digging stuff out of the ground is the only area where we would be competitive.
Click to expand...
Mining is our largest export industry but Accommodation (8.9%) and Financial and insurance services (8.69%) are our two largest industries (by gross value added) with mining a close third (8.57%) and construction (8.26%) a close fourth. ~2.4% of people are directly employed in mining (but with many more indirectly employed). If demand for our gold/silver increases because of remonetisation then, yes, there will be a new gold rush to in to make more of what the world wants. There is a lot of technology and skill that goes into making iron ore and refined gold for export. It really shouldn't be downplayed compared to someone making furniture or plastic toys. The ability to safely extract 2 grams of gold from 1,000,000 grams of rock from an underground mine with a twisting turning vein hundreds of kilometres from places where most people want to live for under $1,000/oz is a real achievement of technology and skill that should not be understated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top