Tuesday, October 5, 2010

foreclosure search

Folks, check this out!


 


 


http://www.usagold.com/goldtrail/archives/another1.html

ANOTHER ( THOUGHTS! ) ID#60253:


All: I ask you, why did the world go off the gold standard in the early 70s? You have an answer, yes? For all the problems this created, could the countries not just revalue gold upward, to say $300 ( back then ) ? What was the real reason the world entered a period of "freely traded" "managed gold"? "


This question has more impact on the gold market of today than it did then! In days past, it was held as good knowledge that the US stopped gold backing to protect the dollar and keep gold from leaving to other shores.


But, in the same time frame, all central banks did sell gold to all persons, even the US. All treasuries held gold and dollars as reserves. To what end did the world financial system gain with the dollar off gold backing, and then allowed to "dirty float" against all currencies? Would the world not have been better off to find gold revalued to, say $300 and then begin a "dirty float"? Noone would have lost, and the inflation would have , at best, not have been worse!


Truly, I tell the reason for this action. The US oil companies knew that the cheap reserves were found. The governments knew this also. The only low cost oil reserves in the world at this time were in the Middle East, and their cost to find and produce was very low. It was known, that, in time, ALL oil would come from this land. As much higher US dollar prices were needed to allow exploration and production of other reserves, worldwide. But, how to get crude prices, up, when the Gulf States were OK to pump and produce in exchange for "gold backed dollars"? I will not name the gentlemen that brought this thinking to the surface in that era, but it was discussed. It was known that oil liked gold. It was known that "local oil" would be used up without higher prices. What if, the US dollar was taken off the gold standard, and gold was managed "upward" to say, $208 per ounce? The dynamics of the market would force oil to rise and allow for much needed capital to search for the higher priced oil that was known to exist! The producers would find shelter in gold even as the price of oil was increased in terms of a now "non gold dollar"! Price inflation would rise, but gold and oil would also increase. The dollar would continue to be used as the only payment for oil, and in doing so replace gold as the backing for this "reserve currency". All would be fair.


The war in 1973 and the Iran problem did make markets "overshoot", but all did work to the correct end. The result was "a needed higher price for a commodity that was, as reserves, in much over supply by the wrong countries"! It was known that the public would never have accepted this "proposition" as fair. To this end, we have come.



-->




  • If you don't want to understand the different
    by Tbone




  • Nice read until I got to the cyrillic font??????? nt
    by pilgrim




  • NRA protects gunowners
    by expatuae




  • Class Act
    by reaganiterepublicanresistance




  • Why?
    by Repair_Man_Jack




  • Gotta say, love the O'Donnell witch ad
    by tngal




  • Athieists Are Very Theological
    by Repair_Man_Jack




  • Me Neither
    by Repair_Man_Jack




  • Just a thought
    by jeanms




  • Some thoughtful connections here
    by civil_truth




  • PPP did a poll of this district for Kos too
    by scarlos




  • Scary
    by Repair_Man_Jack




  • If they get a bailout they are just Pravda
    by Beaglescout




  • Well, I'd say Uncle Charlie needs more minding...
    by acat




  • Kudos to Doug Hoffman
    by rdelbov




  • Reading posts like yours makes me wish...
    by Ron Robinson




  • I agree, but...
    by IronDioPriest




  • If the annual deficit were to go to $0the interest rate spike that you mention would likely be avoided
    by JSobieski




  • Inteligent response...not.
    by rasvar




  • What is the status of Miller/Murkowski?
    by fbks




  • Profound words, Repairman, profound.
    by penguin2




  • Several others who would do well by following your lead Mr. Hoffman.
    by tngal




  • Depends on you define "savings"
    by JSobieski




  • Umm, maybe because they're a lobbying group, and therefore are partisans, of a sort?
    by acat




  • Doug Hoffman is a patriot
    by karenmartin




  • It's a Brave New World out there...
    by harling




  • Neil, I think of it more like...
    by RedBeard




  • So you are against paying down the debt
    by Death_of_the_Donkey




  • She also opposed the make-my-day-better law.
    by NightTwister




  • Remember
    by banzaibob




  • Well Done, Sir!
    by chipbennett




  • No surplusses are surplusses
    by Neil Stevens




  • Nature Naturally Abhors Cities
    by wolfgang




  • We know where the bridges and viaducts are...
    by acat




  • Surplusses are fiction until
    by Death_of_the_Donkey




  • He was a Dem before he became a Repub
    by AnnaD




  • Of course, scotch is something good :) nt
    by JSobieski




  • No we can't all agree on that
    by Neil Stevens




  • His head's still in the barf bag
    by peg_c




  • Agree on Imam Obama sans TOTUS (idiot board)
    by peg_c





robert shumake

Why diversity turns into conformity in online <b>news</b>: An interview <b>...</b>

If you talk to any of the number of young academics who occasionally contribute to the Lab, it's likely the name Pablo Boczkowski will come up sooner rather.

The Best Tweets About Twitter&#39;s CEO <b>News</b>

But the masses have been tweeting up a storm about Twitter's CEO news. By far the best tweet is the one that Dick Costolo himself sent a year ago, foreshadowing the news -- likely unknowingly -- when he first became COO. ...

Exclusive: I have some big <b>news</b>... | Ausiello | EW.com

You may need a hug after you read this. Or I may need one. Sources confirm to me exclusively that… I just made pretty much the most difficult decision of my ...


robert shumake

Why diversity turns into conformity in online <b>news</b>: An interview <b>...</b>

If you talk to any of the number of young academics who occasionally contribute to the Lab, it's likely the name Pablo Boczkowski will come up sooner rather.

The Best Tweets About Twitter&#39;s CEO <b>News</b>

But the masses have been tweeting up a storm about Twitter's CEO news. By far the best tweet is the one that Dick Costolo himself sent a year ago, foreshadowing the news -- likely unknowingly -- when he first became COO. ...

Exclusive: I have some big <b>news</b>... | Ausiello | EW.com

You may need a hug after you read this. Or I may need one. Sources confirm to me exclusively that… I just made pretty much the most difficult decision of my ...



913 Via Mirola by homeispalosverdes


robert shumake

















Folks, check this out!


 


 


http://www.usagold.com/goldtrail/archives/another1.html

ANOTHER ( THOUGHTS! ) ID#60253:


All: I ask you, why did the world go off the gold standard in the early 70s? You have an answer, yes? For all the problems this created, could the countries not just revalue gold upward, to say $300 ( back then ) ? What was the real reason the world entered a period of "freely traded" "managed gold"? "


This question has more impact on the gold market of today than it did then! In days past, it was held as good knowledge that the US stopped gold backing to protect the dollar and keep gold from leaving to other shores.


But, in the same time frame, all central banks did sell gold to all persons, even the US. All treasuries held gold and dollars as reserves. To what end did the world financial system gain with the dollar off gold backing, and then allowed to "dirty float" against all currencies? Would the world not have been better off to find gold revalued to, say $300 and then begin a "dirty float"? Noone would have lost, and the inflation would have , at best, not have been worse!


Truly, I tell the reason for this action. The US oil companies knew that the cheap reserves were found. The governments knew this also. The only low cost oil reserves in the world at this time were in the Middle East, and their cost to find and produce was very low. It was known, that, in time, ALL oil would come from this land. As much higher US dollar prices were needed to allow exploration and production of other reserves, worldwide. But, how to get crude prices, up, when the Gulf States were OK to pump and produce in exchange for "gold backed dollars"? I will not name the gentlemen that brought this thinking to the surface in that era, but it was discussed. It was known that oil liked gold. It was known that "local oil" would be used up without higher prices. What if, the US dollar was taken off the gold standard, and gold was managed "upward" to say, $208 per ounce? The dynamics of the market would force oil to rise and allow for much needed capital to search for the higher priced oil that was known to exist! The producers would find shelter in gold even as the price of oil was increased in terms of a now "non gold dollar"! Price inflation would rise, but gold and oil would also increase. The dollar would continue to be used as the only payment for oil, and in doing so replace gold as the backing for this "reserve currency". All would be fair.


The war in 1973 and the Iran problem did make markets "overshoot", but all did work to the correct end. The result was "a needed higher price for a commodity that was, as reserves, in much over supply by the wrong countries"! It was known that the public would never have accepted this "proposition" as fair. To this end, we have come.



-->




  • If you don't want to understand the different
    by Tbone




  • Nice read until I got to the cyrillic font??????? nt
    by pilgrim




  • NRA protects gunowners
    by expatuae




  • Class Act
    by reaganiterepublicanresistance




  • Why?
    by Repair_Man_Jack




  • Gotta say, love the O'Donnell witch ad
    by tngal




  • Athieists Are Very Theological
    by Repair_Man_Jack




  • Me Neither
    by Repair_Man_Jack




  • Just a thought
    by jeanms




  • Some thoughtful connections here
    by civil_truth




  • PPP did a poll of this district for Kos too
    by scarlos




  • Scary
    by Repair_Man_Jack




  • If they get a bailout they are just Pravda
    by Beaglescout




  • Well, I'd say Uncle Charlie needs more minding...
    by acat




  • Kudos to Doug Hoffman
    by rdelbov




  • Reading posts like yours makes me wish...
    by Ron Robinson




  • I agree, but...
    by IronDioPriest




  • If the annual deficit were to go to $0the interest rate spike that you mention would likely be avoided
    by JSobieski




  • Inteligent response...not.
    by rasvar




  • What is the status of Miller/Murkowski?
    by fbks




  • Profound words, Repairman, profound.
    by penguin2




  • Several others who would do well by following your lead Mr. Hoffman.
    by tngal




  • Depends on you define "savings"
    by JSobieski




  • Umm, maybe because they're a lobbying group, and therefore are partisans, of a sort?
    by acat




  • Doug Hoffman is a patriot
    by karenmartin




  • It's a Brave New World out there...
    by harling




  • Neil, I think of it more like...
    by RedBeard




  • So you are against paying down the debt
    by Death_of_the_Donkey




  • She also opposed the make-my-day-better law.
    by NightTwister




  • Remember
    by banzaibob




  • Well Done, Sir!
    by chipbennett




  • No surplusses are surplusses
    by Neil Stevens




  • Nature Naturally Abhors Cities
    by wolfgang




  • We know where the bridges and viaducts are...
    by acat




  • Surplusses are fiction until
    by Death_of_the_Donkey




  • He was a Dem before he became a Repub
    by AnnaD




  • Of course, scotch is something good :) nt
    by JSobieski




  • No we can't all agree on that
    by Neil Stevens




  • His head's still in the barf bag
    by peg_c




  • Agree on Imam Obama sans TOTUS (idiot board)
    by peg_c








No comments:

Post a Comment