Patrick Elliott wrote:
> and until someone demanded to "see" the gold, 
> no one would have a clue anything had changed. 

Right. And with some 300 million people in the country, using gold to 
transfer value between banks, shipping too much of the gold elsewhere 
leads to you getting caught.

(This, basically, is exactly what FDR did when they set up the federal 
reserve.)

> Such a standard, as I 
> have tried to point out, is meaningless on its face, since you are still 
> trusting someone to "honestly" have what they claim is being used to 
> back it, 

Yes. Except if it's the government doing it, you don't have to trust 
them to honestly have what they claim. They can just say "No, we decided 
to give away all your gold. Tough crap."

> The very idea that they *is* a 
> real difference between these in terms of how the money itself gets 
> used, and what ever trust is placed in it, is, I am sorry, but... 
> delusional.

So you're happy taking corporate stocks as payment for your salary 
instead of cash? The company you work for will pay you in corporate 
stocks, but they won't buy them back from you for actual cash. Instead, 
they just say "Trust us, the value is actually there."  That works for you?

Cause it's the same thing.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message