my question is simple. The U.S abandoned the gold standard for a more flexible currency. That being said, we're borrowing tons of money at an alarming rate to stave off a recession (still gonna happen). The price of gold has gone up, what happens to the gold in fort knox and why aren't we using it?
The amount of gold in fort knox is not like james bond movies... basically there are way too little gold to cover anything financially (is like trying to put out the fire in 911 twin towers with a glas of water).. actually if we collect all the gold in the world we can only fit less than 50% of washington momument (and that is ALL the gold in the world, including you mom's wedding ring)...
Btw i dont know if u know this.. but there are actually more gold digged out than silver -silver is actually more rare than gold... go figure...
__________________________________________
No Matter Who Wins, our troops are always in Good Hands!
give u guys some numbers... currently, ther gold price is around 25dollar per gram... as in 25000 dollar per kilo... and the fed need 700billion USD... how much gold do u need? well too much for my math... get the point.. gold is far from solution, as what the US need is more than beat up a couple jews and take their teeth...
Edit: interesting... I never expect the US to hold that much gold... However, 241billion is a static price.. that meaning if US dont trade it gold... or trade a small amount of gold.. lets say if US decide to sell all it gold for cash (flooding the gold market), it be lucky if it can get more than 50% of the static price..
__________________________________________
No Matter Who Wins, our troops are always in Good Hands!
This message has been edited by oki81 on Sep 23, 2008 9:24 PM
please note i wrote "digged out"... i am aware of there are plenty of gold... but i am not talking about in the earth.. i am talking about on the earth...
__________________________________________
No Matter Who Wins, our troops are always in Good Hands!
Lol even if you take all the world's gold reserves, you'd barely have enough for the $700 billion bailout. And like Oki said, dumping US gold reserves to pay debt is only gonna drop gold prices and dig US deeper in debt.
------------------------------------
#1 way to ascertain that you've lost an argument: Resorting to personal attacks.
I don't think there should even be a bailout. Why in the world should we spend money we don't have to bail out these Wall Street fat cats?
A recession, or depression, will correct the inbalances. Trying to do a bailout on this problem will only prolong the agony and make the correction even worse.
Milkman
This message has been edited by American_Patriot on Sep 24, 2008 3:44 AM
Bailouts are so unfair to the small businesses and is only a temporary relief that does more damage to the economy in the long run, not to mention adding to inflation in a fiat currency, increasing government control over the market and going against free market principle. But I doubt they can be stopped, more than likely there is a strong lobby pushing for these bailouts.
While I'm skeptical that the $700 billion dollar bailout is gonna do much good, I do think that government needs to find some way to stimulate the economy with capital. It's not just helping fat cats, it's also helping any American who invested in stocks, money market, etc, who saved for their future or retirement rather than spending like crazy. Should they be punished for saving and investing their money rather than spending it?
Certainly a recession and hard fall will correct the problem, but you won't find Obama saying "Let the recession sort it out. If you lose your life's savings and your job, just suck it up and walk it off."
------------------------------------
#1 way to ascertain that you've lost an argument: Resorting to personal attacks.
The Fed (or actually the Treasury) does not need $700B. They just want to give money to private companies which have made bad investments. The executives of those companies have already received billions in bonuses as a reward for their incompetence. US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson was one such executive, who during his time at Goldman Sachs, accumulated $700 million in personal assets. Let the bastards eat cake, I say!