1971 Gold Standard and Society

[KDave]

An interesting infographic for those with a propensity for charts, aptly named 'WTF happened in 1971';

https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/

At first many of the charts seem to have nothing to do with the monetary system. However I think they are put in there as there seems to be correlations between changing of the monetary system and the profound changes across seemingly unlinked parts of society, including mortgage debt, crime, divorce rates. All of these took off when we dropped the gold standard.  

Is it coincidence that these things happened together? Or is it that there are more than just the monetary discipline arguments for a return to the gold standard? I could draw from the charts here that the monetary system appears to be something fundamental to social strength (low crime, strong family) and freedom (from debt and subsistence/slave level wages).

Another conclusion I think I am more confident with, is that the loss of monetary discipline is a consequence of a weakening society. That coming off the gold standard (hard money) and onto fiat (easy money) is a symptom of a society on its way out, demonstrated by the rise in divorce and crime and debt/income inequality. Perhaps there are historic examples of this, such as Roman debasement of currency as it stagnated and eventually fell. In that example, was debasement of the money the cause of the fall of Rome, or was it a symptom, an indicator of the fall already happening? Is it the same with us? 

Another way to think about it is, if we returned to the gold standard today, would all of these problems reverse?

What do we reckon? 

[Roy]

1971 was a changing point in History, and not for the common good.

We lost Jim Morrison, Duane Allman and Gene Vincent and were still mourning the deaths of Jimi Hendrix and Janis Joplin. 

The media blamed drug abuse but we all knew the real cause. Nixon had a lot to answer for 😁

Joking aside, I wonder if  'the loss of monetary discipline is a consequence of a weakening society' or the cause of a weakening society is the loss of monetary discipline?

[5huggy]

1971 was in my opinion - the loss of understanding of "SOUND MONEY" -

Everything thereafter is "CURRENCY" manipulation!

Once I had grasped this a few years back - thats when I got seriously more involved in PM's

[ilovesilverireallydo]

 In 1968, Fairchild engineer Federico Faggin improved MOS technology with his development of the silicon-gate MOS chip, which he later used to develop the Intel 4004, the first single-chip microprocessor.  It was released by Intel in 1971, and laid the foundations for the microcomputer revolution that began in the 1970s.

And that exponentially grew our reliance on technology and our ability to grow exponentially. Productivity grew due to the use of computing technology. 

[5huggy]

Oh Boy yeah - I remember the 4.77Mhz Intel 8088  processor! Green screen CRT monitor etc etc oh the good old days of simple coding and "REPAIRABLE" pc's

👍😉🤣

[HawkHybrid]

2 hours ago, KDave said:

Another way to think about it is, if we returned to the gold standard today, would all of these problems reverse?

 

if the gold standard was such an amazing thing then

why was it replaced with currency?

the reality is that there are plenty of flaws with the

gold standard/sound money.

 

'war is sweet to those who have never experienced it - Pindar'

 

people save money during better times. it's not the saving

of money that created the better times. it's the prudent

sowing of seeds. the gold standard is a result of economic

boom, similar to something like drinking champagne.

would drinking champagne bring victory or does victory

allow for the consumption of champagne?

 

a change in society caused changes such as high crime etc.

including abandoning the gold standard.

 

it is likely that the currency system that we have is better than

the old gold standard. people are just unwilling to see it.

returning to a gold standard is not a fix for the problems that

we currently face.

 

bias test, name one good thing that currency has over the

gold standard?

 

HH

[5huggy]

NONE! - constantly devaluing!

[Stu]

Permitting a fiat system is as good as picking the pocket of every citizen on this planet. The big boys are at play here and they couldn't give a damn about Joe public.

incidently Nixon "temporarily" and  unilaterally suspended the convertibility of dollars into gold, thus reneging on their responsibilities via the Brettom Woods agreement which was already heavily biased towards the States and dollar due to having reserve status. I wonder if anyone would have the courage to reenact. 

[HawkHybrid]

26 minutes ago, 5huggy said:

NONE! - constantly devaluing!

 

I was actually being serious.

even rubbish has it's pros and cons versus

desirable stuff.

 

HH

[HawkHybrid]

9 minutes ago, Stu said:

Permitting a fiat system is as good as picking the pocket of every citizen on this planet. The big boys are at play here and they couldn't give a damn about Joe public.

 

this is not entirely true.

try to think of inflation as a tax on the use of currency.

a commission. the use of the system is not free.

it's a system that has it's taxes set up differently.

there is two parts to this. the system and those who

choose to abuse the system. it's like saying we should

ban knives because of knife crime.  it's the criminal at

fault and not the knife.

 

seriously, try to think of one advantage that currency

has over the gold standard and you will be closer to

working out how biased/unbiased your views are.

 

HH

[Stu]

Just now, HawkHybrid said:

 

this is not true.

try to think of inflation as a tax on the use of currency.

a commission. the use of the system is not free.

it's a system that has it's taxes set up differently.

 

seriously, try to think of one advantage that currency

has over the gold standard and you will be closer to

working out how biased/unbiased your views are.

 

HH

You can consider it a tax, I will consider it theft! Gold had no conterparty  claim and everyone wanted it.

if in dire straights you can wipe your rear with currency. 

[Roy]

There is nothing wrong with currency if you use it correctly.

You transact with it, you use it for bills, as a medium of exchange.

But..never save in fiat. Use gold.

[HawkHybrid]

20 minutes ago, Stu said:

You can consider it a tax, I will consider it theft!

 

is paying what others are due considered theft?

the cash machine stole from me(transaction charge)?

my internet company steals from me every month

(non free internet fee)?

the chemist stole from me(free on nhs)?

 

when you choose to not pay, then someone else has

to pay.

 

strangely I don't hear complaints that sellers of gold

are charging a % over spot for their wares? they must

be stealing from us?

 

HH

[sixgun]

1 hour ago, HawkHybrid said:

if the gold standard was such an amazing thing then why was it replaced with currency?

Post WWII the US got the world reserve currency b/c the British Empire was bankrupt along with the rest of Europe and the US had all the gold.
The US promised not to issue too many dollars but they did - the Vietnam war was expensive and they were creating dollars out of thin air - buying goods the rest of the world had to work for. The French said enough - we want our gold and sent war ships to get it. Perhaps the US didn't even have the gold - it hadn't been audited since the 1950's. Nixon 'temporarily suspended' the convertibility of the dollar into gold. That was the beginning of the end, the end we are approaching right now - the US then could develop a printing press economy. It no longer had to balance the books - it could just print more currency out of thin air. It is the same as having a credit card with an unlimited limit. That's amazing.

The gold standard was rejected to enable the funding of endless wars, to fund endless spending, to fuel growing profits for the corporations. Fiat currency is not good, it is like a drug - you get addicted, you get sick and then you die whilst the drug pusher gets richer.

[HawkHybrid]

14 minutes ago, sixgun said:

Post WWII the US got the world reserve currency b/c the British Empire was bankrupt along with the rest of Europe and the US had all the gold.
The US promised not to issue too many dollars but they did - the Vietnam war was expensive and they were creating dollars out of thin air - buying goods the rest of the world had to work for. The French said enough - we want our gold and sent war ships to get it. Perhaps the US didn't even have the gold - it hadn't been audited since the 1950's. Nixon 'temporarily suspended' the convertibility of the dollar into gold. That was the beginning of the end, the end we are approaching right now - the US then could develop a printing press economy. It no longer had to balance the books - it could just print more currency out of thin air. It is the same as having a credit card with an unlimited limit. That's amazing.

The gold standard was rejected to enable the funding of endless wars, to fund endless spending, to fuel growing profits for the corporations. Fiat currency is not good, it is like a drug - you get addicted, you get sick and then you die whilst the drug pusher gets richer.

 

after the zimbawe currency collapse they went

to trading in gold(gold standard). after that

they then went on to trading using us dollars.

 

take the bias test, see how many advantages you

can name of currency versus gold standard.

 

(fti read my footer for my stance on currency/gold)

 

HH 

[sixgun]

i related the history of what happened. Accept the facts of history or invent your own reality.

[Stu]

38 minutes ago, HawkHybrid said:

 

is paying what others are due considered theft?

the cash machine stole from me(transaction charge)?

my internet company steals from me every month

(non free internet fee)?

the chemist stole from me(free on nhs)?

 

when you choose to not pay, then someone else has

to pay.

 

strangely I don't hear complaints that sellers of gold

are charging a % over spot for their wares? they must

be stealing from us?

 

HH

The cost of creating money is factored into all in cost. A £20 note costs pennies to produce, as does transporting cash or processing digital currency.

£20 for an all in cost of around 5p , that's a good return. They are out and out thieves, stealing people's hard earned with inflation and money printing.

Sad thing is, if they didn't extort it this way, they would manage another. You may see scenes like HK here and continental Europe the next time the economy burst, they have manipulated things that badly. 

[HawkHybrid]

26 minutes ago, Stu said:

The cost of creating money is factored into all in cost.

 

this is not true for the currency system. the gold standard

had all of the cost in the price. the currency system is like

renting, cost is each time but a smaller amount versus buying.

overall the renting system of currency is more expensive in

the long run but it does actually have advantages. is charging

rent stealing?

 

you can still choose to save in gold, similar to if we were still

on the gold standard. the introduction of fiat currency haven't

changed that.

 

sometimes it's better to rent, sometimes it's better to buy.

it all works differently for different people.

 

did britain turn to a currency(renting) system after the

world wars because all the investment that went into all

those young brits turned into losses when they died?

britain no longer had the means to buy(gold standard)?

 

HH

[HawkHybrid]

15 minutes ago, sixgun said:

i related the history of what happened. Accept the facts of history or invent your own reality.

 

what happened in zimbabwe is also facts of history.

you can cherry pick to satisfy your confirmation bias,

or you can have a closer look at the other side of the

story. there's two sides to every coin.

 

HH

[sixgun]

1 hour ago, HawkHybrid said:

 

what happened in zimbabwe is also facts of history.

you can cherry pick to satisfy your confirmation bias,

or you can have a closer look at the other side of the

story. there's two sides to every coin.

 

HH

i use the example of the world reserve currency and you use an African country wrecked by a psychopathic despot. 
We have had this discussion several times before. You do not seem to grasp reality or how the world is and how human nature is.

You have said it doesn't matter who issues the currency - that it is just fine for High Street banks to issue currency. That it is just fine for them to create currency out of thin air that people mistakenly believe the bank is 'lending' to them. 

Normal people have to expend blood, sweat and tears for cash and yet according to you it is just fine for banks to create it out of thin air and charge interest. 
i am not sure where your thinking comes from. The limitless credit card the dumb people pay has fueled massive corruption - we got a glimpse of it during the Brexit farce during which the country pays over £1 billion a month (over 27 tonnes of gold a month). Why do you think so many politicians are desperate to stay on the EU ride? How would this nonsense be fueled without la la land currency which is borrowed into existence and burdened future generations as far into the future as can be imagined until the whole sh1t show collapses.

[KDave]

I have heard the arguments for fiat and gold and I am an advocate for the current system of dual monetary aspect, one for trade one for savings. Pure gold standard is honest (until it's not) but at a cost. Inflation tax of fiat is the cost to its benefits, ect.

The thing that is interesting, (the point I was interested in), is the apparent link between coming off of the gold standard and social and economic decline of the majority of people. Is it monetarily related, some characteristic of fiat or gold that is overlooked? Or is it indicative of social decline? Or coincidence? Any thoughts on this aspect of it? 

[sixgun]

48 minutes ago, KDave said:

I have heard the arguments for fiat and gold and I am an advocate for the current system of dual monetary aspect, one for trade one for savings. Pure gold standard is honest (until it's not) but at a cost. Inflation tax of fiat is the cost to its benefits, ect.

The thing that is interesting, (the point I was interested in), is the apparent link between coming off of the gold standard and social and economic decline of the majority of people. Is it monetarily related, some characteristic of fiat or gold that is overlooked? Or is it indicative of social decline? Or coincidence? Any thoughts on this aspect of it? 

It is a limitless credit card in the hands of criminals - it means there can be endless wars - endless backhanders - endless feasts at the trough. $trillions upon $trillions are looted. This can only go on when there is a limitless credit card. 

[kimchi]

A very interesting topic. There is no direct 'cause and effect' I would suggest, and yet they are in a wider sense absolutely inextricably linked...for 'history' I would suggest looking at the whole picture with Vietnam (as mentioned), the manipulated counter-culture of the late 60s onwards, the feminist movement, etc etc.

I would absolutely love to know why they set Nixon up though after he carried out the suspension as he was set up to do...perhaps he was a man of some principle who intended it as only temporary, perhaps that was the really damaging stuff they picked up on his recorded messages...the rest of the story is hogwash.

I wonder if many on here know that he's said to be a mentor of Trump - the man who told him to go for the Presidency in the late 80s (iirc)? Or that Trump's uncle is said to have been around Tesla's papers 'cleaning up' after his passing?

1 hour ago, HawkHybrid said:

there's two sides to every coin.

There are three - you have hit the nail on the head there.

[sixgun]

15 minutes ago, kimchi said:

A very interesting topic. There is no direct 'cause and effect' I would suggest, and yet they are in a wider sense absolutely inextricably linked...for 'history' I would suggest looking at the whole picture with Vietnam (as mentioned), the manipulated counter-culture of the late 60s onwards, the feminist movement, etc etc.

I would absolutely love to know why they set Nixon up though after he carried out the suspension as he was set up to do...perhaps he was a man of some principle who intended it as only temporary, perhaps that was the really damaging stuff they picked up on his recorded messages...the rest of the story is hogwash.

I wonder if many on here know that he's said to be a mentor of Trump - the man who told him to go for the Presidency in the late 80s (iirc)? Or that Trump's uncle is said to have been around Tesla's papers 'cleaning up' after his passing?

There are three - you have hit the nail on the head there.

There are never two sides - there is the truth and then everything else.

[kimchi]

3 minutes ago, sixgun said:

There are never two sides - there is the truth and then everything else.

Then you need to look harder for 'the truth'.