show details 1:06 PM (10 hours ago)
|
This is for David Wilcox; I don't have his direct email but it seems he is associated directly with your site. Please pass it along to him.
----
I am the founder and operator of ML-Implode.com and the "Implode-o-Meter" family of sites chronicling the economic crisis (viewed at least 50 million times since year-end 2006). I see my mission as discovering what is "really going on" in the financial and monetary arena, and demystifying it for regular folks in plain language. As part of this, I have ended up researching a fair amount of "esoteric" monetary information (not all of which I've re-reported), some of which overlaps with the things Wilcox is reporting, a small amount of which does not. Using this information, as well as very careful gleaning from what does come out publicly through "normal" channels, I've built up my own picture of the "grand monetary game". This image has quickened lately, and largely agrees with what Wilcox is now reporting.
I have read the recent posts on the Dragon Family lawsuit and listened to David's Project Camelot interview. To me they ring true (I deducted this after reading the filling EVEN BEFORE it appeared in PACER) -- they clarify a lot, and emphasize suspicions I already had based on my prior explorations. So that's what I wanted to say firstly: someone coming from a totally different perspective (a no-holds-barred truth-seeking inquiry into just what makes the economy tick--no other "esoterica") ends up agreeing with the picture David is painting.
Here I have some things to add which should be of benefit to David in explaining all of this to the world's people (some of which are "corrections", but just as much of which underscores what he is saying).
(1) First -- and I don't know if this is more a matter of being incorrect as much as the way the information came out -- your statements about the effect of gold on the people are actually backwards.
In discussing what Adam Smith laid out, you say that "gold cannot be used because as wealth is created, the value of the money goes down." This is incorrect -- the value goes UP, because there's the same quantity of gold relative to increasing goods and services (i.e. money becomes more rare, hence more valuable). This is correctly called (monetary) "deflation" -- but it isn't bad for common people! It simply means their savings is becoming WORTH MORE (in real terms), and their wages tend to grow! Why then is "deflation" given a bad name? Primarily because the elitist banksters HATE IT -- they don't WANT common folk to be able to grow their savings without HANDING IT OVER TO THEM. And I'm sure I don't need to explain to you the folly of a system where everyone has to hand over their hard-earned wealth to the bankers, lest it evaporate away to nothing! (Ditto for wages: if everyone tends to automatically get paid less and less, this crushes labor -- a far more important factor than the relative power that unions might have).
Deflation also tends to mean the banksters/bankers are losing out big on foolish bets they've made (which actually happens regularly in cycles), another reason they hate it (but it doesn't intrinsically mean that much to the man on the street, unless the bankers get governments to convince them that "the world is coming to an end" if the public doesn't bail them out!).
At the same time, I think Smith's general statements as you present them are basically correct: monetary gold in the hands of governments is a danger. Why? Because with the government defining money relative to gold, at any time, they can change the definition (or revoke it entirely, as in the 1934 US gold confiscation) to suit their purposes. But the answer is not to somehow banish a "hard money" system and move to a pure fiat system that attempts to "grow the money supply based on economic growth" -- that is no less dangerous to collectively manage than a gold standard is (and in fact much more; though it CAN be done successfully on a LOCAL level). The answer is to let the free market (i.e. the people) define what money is, on a truly competitive basis.
If you look at the statements of a number of prominent individuals in monetary issues, exemplified by Ron Paul, you'll see this point echoed. Ron Paul has tirelessly corrected those who assume he supports a gold standard, stating instead that he believes in "legalizing private money", so the people can choose for themselves whether to use gold or silver (or something else), or some particular formulation of them. This is because Ron Paul has studied enough to know that precious metals are the best bet for the common man to preserve and grow his wealth; yet a state-managed gold/silver stander will inevitably become corrupted, and turned into a vehicle of exploitation of the common man.
(2) If we put this together with the information you are releasing, we see that the notion of STATE-SPONSORED gold standards has been misused systematically over the last few hundred years as a means to confiscate the wealth of the people, and, as you say, force them to use a fantasy paper/electronic money standard that gives the elites EVEN MORE control. This abuse of gold is actually relatively new (over the last ~300 years; possibly concomitant with the Rothschild cabal); before that, gold and silver were used as money predominantly in a free market fashion by the people themselves. For example, look at the Byzantine solidus, which was used freely far beyond byzantium for > 800 years. North America/US is another example-- we started off (even before the Articles of the Confederacy) with a free-market based usage of silver coinage based off of the Spanish milled dollar, and had > 200 years of economic and per capita wealth growth until this de facto market standard was permanently corrupted.
On the flip side, I have seen plenty of solid information that gold is used ACTIVELY in the reckoning of the elites, in their own dealings, of which the public only ever gets a small peek. I have assembled some of this information myself, but also it has been compiled in sources like Antony Sutton's "The War On Gold" (published in the early 70s). In other words, for them, it has never stopped "being money"!
Anyway, the point is: the gold SHOULD be in the hands of the people, not the elites, so that the people might control their own wealth and destiny fully. I think it is evident that a state-sponsored precious metals standard can be trusted, because it can too easily be co-opted/corrupted by elite interests (to say nothing of self-interested politicians).
(3) Now, here is another interesting point: I have recently seen independent information and analysis that verifies what you are saying about the 10-20x greater quantity of gold in the world. If true this is of course very important, because one of the top (bullshit) arguments against the COMMON monetary use of gold (I won't say "gold standard") is that there "isn't enough". Put aside for a minute the basic argument that quantity doesn't really matter for a modern gold standard (if the dollar price is set properly), there still would be plenty of gold to PHYSICALLY CIRCULATE if this were true. This is rather interesting because it means gold could have a much wider application, beyond just large-scale wealth hoards (as is mostly the case today, even publicly).
Here is a fantastic report that came out in October that wholeheartedly supports what you are saying about the quantity of gold (I sent this out to my subscribers about a week before your Dragon lawsuit report, so the two really resonated for me!):
Barton comes to the conclusion that there is at least 10x the publicly-admitted inventory of gold, and that this is (contrary to naive assumption) actually GOOD for the advocates of gold used by the people as an empowering, "popular money".
(4) On Dollar value of gold if there is 10x-20x the publicly-reported amount, and the likely "equilibrium" valuation to back world money supply.
The public inventory of gold, using a 170,000 tonnes number (almost exactly 6 billion ounces) , comes to almost exactly $10 trillion, assuming a $1700/oz gold value.
This implies of course that a 10x greater gold supply is worth $100 trillion, and 20x about $200 trillion.
I believe (on the Camelot interview) you said something like "100 million trillion" -- nope; just plain old $100 trillion!
Interestingly, while enough gold to really be formidable and easily back a "common man's money", this is not enough to back all of the money and credit in circulation without leaving MAJOR gaps (due to the large, reckless bets that have been made)!
That is, while the world "base money supply" (M1+M2) is indeed probably on the order of $100 trillion or so, the derivatives bets have probably inflated the need for a particular amount by a factor of 10 more, i.e., $1000 trillion or 1 quadrillion dollars. Unfunded liabilities of governments may require 5-10x nominal dollars BEYOND that to square up with the money supply.
Thus, I conclude that even with a re-mobilized gold supply of 10-20 times greater than what is acknowledged today, we would still need a gold price of $5,000-20,000/oz to repair (fully back) the world's money supply with something concrete.
I hope this information is useful to you and your followers. Be well, and be safe, and thank you for what you do.
best,
Aaron Krowne
----
I am the founder and operator of ML-Implode.com and the "Implode-o-Meter" family of sites chronicling the economic crisis (viewed at least 50 million times since year-end 2006). I see my mission as discovering what is "really going on" in the financial and monetary arena, and demystifying it for regular folks in plain language. As part of this, I have ended up researching a fair amount of "esoteric" monetary information (not all of which I've re-reported), some of which overlaps with the things Wilcox is reporting, a small amount of which does not. Using this information, as well as very careful gleaning from what does come out publicly through "normal" channels, I've built up my own picture of the "grand monetary game". This image has quickened lately, and largely agrees with what Wilcox is now reporting.
I have read the recent posts on the Dragon Family lawsuit and listened to David's Project Camelot interview. To me they ring true (I deducted this after reading the filling EVEN BEFORE it appeared in PACER) -- they clarify a lot, and emphasize suspicions I already had based on my prior explorations. So that's what I wanted to say firstly: someone coming from a totally different perspective (a no-holds-barred truth-seeking inquiry into just what makes the economy tick--no other "esoterica") ends up agreeing with the picture David is painting.
Here I have some things to add which should be of benefit to David in explaining all of this to the world's people (some of which are "corrections", but just as much of which underscores what he is saying).
(1) First -- and I don't know if this is more a matter of being incorrect as much as the way the information came out -- your statements about the effect of gold on the people are actually backwards.
In discussing what Adam Smith laid out, you say that "gold cannot be used because as wealth is created, the value of the money goes down." This is incorrect -- the value goes UP, because there's the same quantity of gold relative to increasing goods and services (i.e. money becomes more rare, hence more valuable). This is correctly called (monetary) "deflation" -- but it isn't bad for common people! It simply means their savings is becoming WORTH MORE (in real terms), and their wages tend to grow! Why then is "deflation" given a bad name? Primarily because the elitist banksters HATE IT -- they don't WANT common folk to be able to grow their savings without HANDING IT OVER TO THEM. And I'm sure I don't need to explain to you the folly of a system where everyone has to hand over their hard-earned wealth to the bankers, lest it evaporate away to nothing! (Ditto for wages: if everyone tends to automatically get paid less and less, this crushes labor -- a far more important factor than the relative power that unions might have).
Deflation also tends to mean the banksters/bankers are losing out big on foolish bets they've made (which actually happens regularly in cycles), another reason they hate it (but it doesn't intrinsically mean that much to the man on the street, unless the bankers get governments to convince them that "the world is coming to an end" if the public doesn't bail them out!).
At the same time, I think Smith's general statements as you present them are basically correct: monetary gold in the hands of governments is a danger. Why? Because with the government defining money relative to gold, at any time, they can change the definition (or revoke it entirely, as in the 1934 US gold confiscation) to suit their purposes. But the answer is not to somehow banish a "hard money" system and move to a pure fiat system that attempts to "grow the money supply based on economic growth" -- that is no less dangerous to collectively manage than a gold standard is (and in fact much more; though it CAN be done successfully on a LOCAL level). The answer is to let the free market (i.e. the people) define what money is, on a truly competitive basis.
If you look at the statements of a number of prominent individuals in monetary issues, exemplified by Ron Paul, you'll see this point echoed. Ron Paul has tirelessly corrected those who assume he supports a gold standard, stating instead that he believes in "legalizing private money", so the people can choose for themselves whether to use gold or silver (or something else), or some particular formulation of them. This is because Ron Paul has studied enough to know that precious metals are the best bet for the common man to preserve and grow his wealth; yet a state-managed gold/silver stander will inevitably become corrupted, and turned into a vehicle of exploitation of the common man.
(2) If we put this together with the information you are releasing, we see that the notion of STATE-SPONSORED gold standards has been misused systematically over the last few hundred years as a means to confiscate the wealth of the people, and, as you say, force them to use a fantasy paper/electronic money standard that gives the elites EVEN MORE control. This abuse of gold is actually relatively new (over the last ~300 years; possibly concomitant with the Rothschild cabal); before that, gold and silver were used as money predominantly in a free market fashion by the people themselves. For example, look at the Byzantine solidus, which was used freely far beyond byzantium for > 800 years. North America/US is another example-- we started off (even before the Articles of the Confederacy) with a free-market based usage of silver coinage based off of the Spanish milled dollar, and had > 200 years of economic and per capita wealth growth until this de facto market standard was permanently corrupted.
On the flip side, I have seen plenty of solid information that gold is used ACTIVELY in the reckoning of the elites, in their own dealings, of which the public only ever gets a small peek. I have assembled some of this information myself, but also it has been compiled in sources like Antony Sutton's "The War On Gold" (published in the early 70s). In other words, for them, it has never stopped "being money"!
Anyway, the point is: the gold SHOULD be in the hands of the people, not the elites, so that the people might control their own wealth and destiny fully. I think it is evident that a state-sponsored precious metals standard can be trusted, because it can too easily be co-opted/corrupted by elite interests (to say nothing of self-interested politicians).
(3) Now, here is another interesting point: I have recently seen independent information and analysis that verifies what you are saying about the 10-20x greater quantity of gold in the world. If true this is of course very important, because one of the top (bullshit) arguments against the COMMON monetary use of gold (I won't say "gold standard") is that there "isn't enough". Put aside for a minute the basic argument that quantity doesn't really matter for a modern gold standard (if the dollar price is set properly), there still would be plenty of gold to PHYSICALLY CIRCULATE if this were true. This is rather interesting because it means gold could have a much wider application, beyond just large-scale wealth hoards (as is mostly the case today, even publicly).
Here is a fantastic report that came out in October that wholeheartedly supports what you are saying about the quantity of gold (I sent this out to my subscribers about a week before your Dragon lawsuit report, so the two really resonated for me!):
How Much Gold Stock is There Really?
http://www.Barton comes to the conclusion that there is at least 10x the publicly-admitted inventory of gold, and that this is (contrary to naive assumption) actually GOOD for the advocates of gold used by the people as an empowering, "popular money".
(4) On Dollar value of gold if there is 10x-20x the publicly-reported amount, and the likely "equilibrium" valuation to back world money supply.
The public inventory of gold, using a 170,000 tonnes number (almost exactly 6 billion ounces) , comes to almost exactly $10 trillion, assuming a $1700/oz gold value.
This implies of course that a 10x greater gold supply is worth $100 trillion, and 20x about $200 trillion.
I believe (on the Camelot interview) you said something like "100 million trillion" -- nope; just plain old $100 trillion!
Interestingly, while enough gold to really be formidable and easily back a "common man's money", this is not enough to back all of the money and credit in circulation without leaving MAJOR gaps (due to the large, reckless bets that have been made)!
That is, while the world "base money supply" (M1+M2) is indeed probably on the order of $100 trillion or so, the derivatives bets have probably inflated the need for a particular amount by a factor of 10 more, i.e., $1000 trillion or 1 quadrillion dollars. Unfunded liabilities of governments may require 5-10x nominal dollars BEYOND that to square up with the money supply.
Thus, I conclude that even with a re-mobilized gold supply of 10-20 times greater than what is acknowledged today, we would still need a gold price of $5,000-20,000/oz to repair (fully back) the world's money supply with something concrete.
I hope this information is useful to you and your followers. Be well, and be safe, and thank you for what you do.
best,
Aaron Krowne
No comments:
Post a Comment