Martin Armstrong Discussion

[deisik]

I am always suspicious of cherry-picked dates when looking at performance of various assets.  Picking a period of 2016 Year-to-Date vs. the past five years (or whatever time frames) will yield "the answer you want".  Picking the performance of gold since 2000 for example (arbitrary, but a "round number, ha ha) would get you an approximate quadrupling of the price of gold vs. the US$

And if you chose an even longer period, you would see that gold had been underperfoming for the last 30 plus years. If you adjusted the gold price for dollar inflation, you would see that we are still well below the highs of the early 1980s...



What I mean to say is that you should be really careful about "cherry-picking"

[1715384618]

1715384618

[1715384618]

1715384618

[1715384618]

1715384618

[deisik]

Facts:

• Dollar is up since the peak (various currencies peaked between 2011 and 2016):
  +90% against gold

Can you explain how the USD is up +90% against gold?

He most certainly means that the price of gold plummeted from its peak at $1,895 per ounce in 2011 down to ~$1,050 in late 2015-early 2016, which is roughly equal to a fall of two times (somewhat less than two times, to be precise). If we denote the price of one dollar in troy ounces (that is, price dollars in gold), we will have that the dollar had risen ~90% against gold since 2011 till the end of 2015. Alternately stated, a 2015 dollar could buy almost twice as much gold than a 2011 dollar...

In short, nothing out of the usual fiddling with figures

[OROBTC]

...

deisik

You put that very well re cherry picking dates, I kept my remark brief just by showing 2016 and the 16 or so years before as examples.  Nice graph!  The inflation-adjusted figures are nice to see as well.

Cherry pickers take note, even looking at long-ish time frames one could make weird arguments like that the inflation adjusted price of gold was LOWER in 2003 than in 1934.

Yet the macro-trend is that gold is up nicely vs. dollars since 1913.

Also note how the nominal price of gold has performed extremely well vs. the US$ in that the dollar has lost 97% or so in gold terms...

Very instructive graph, thanks for posting it.

[iamnotback]

In fact, Armstrong's model for the US empire peaked on the day Edward Snowden made his final move of no return for releasing the NSA exposé.

Well, the US did peak in the 1950's, so I guess his model was only 70 years off.

Absolute nonsense. The scope and reach of USA empire continued to increase. And who reshaped the Middle East, kept China contained, and created the fucking Internet and WWW. Duh. (Yeah I know TBL is British, but the Internet moguls are American).

[iamnotback]

The Rothschilds apparently like gold a lot.  It is not at all clear how much they own, but is reputed to be substantial...  Where else are you going to invest your $billion$ after you have plenty of castles and vineyards?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild_family

It would not surprise me at all if the Rs own many tonnes of gold.

Do the Rothschilds know something you don't?  

That family is the classic example of owning lots of quietly held gold, passed down through the generations (other wealthy Europeans have been doing the same for centuries).

Gold is a language between the uber-wealthy. Rothschilds clan are preparing for the SDRs to be backed by a basket which will include gold. This will be for clearing exchanges between nations and the uber wealthy. This is not for you and I.

They can allow gold to be tradable between themselves with no tax and no restrictions, while than confiscate or tax your silly coins and bullion to hell. Sure you can pile yours up at home and do nothing with it to avoid their control, while they can lease theirs earning an income.

Remember they are the market makers that enable the coin dealers to exist. Your gold (and silver) has no (useful) autonomy and no (reasonable) liquidity without them.

I read that the Rothschilds gave up their seat on the London gold exchange. I don't know the significance of that.

[iamnotback]

Maybe somebody should tell him we are end 2016 and not end 2015. He seems a bit lost  

Deadcat bounces (to $1300s) don't count.  

Hang-on because dollar up, gold down. Thus $1050 will likely be revisited before we see ATHs in gold again.

The world needs liquidity and a scorched earth is not in anyone's best interest, thus PUBLIC CONFIDENCE will shift to the dollar and USA stocks once it becomes clear that the global collapse is unavoidable, and this will give the false illusion that the USA is strong. This will work as a bubble for a while.

Then eventually the dollar peaks and we are headed down into the abyss. Then gold goes to as high as $5000.

Get the timing right. We have one final bubble in the dollar underway first.

[iamnotback]

...

I don't know what to think about Bitcoin.  Yes, it has made another nice move, it's around $740 now, up a nice meaty 14% or so in a week or so.

But, as the constant bickering of TPTB in Bitcoinistan continues to bother me (hard forks, etc.), well I don't know if I trust the system to remain intact.  Granted, my use of BTC has been "dual-use" (spend some, throw some into cold storage -- insulates me a bit vs. the high premiums I have had to pay at BTC ATMs).  Nonetheless, the risky-seeming & perhaps rickety BTC system gives me some willies...  

Since I am not a programmer nor know much about Bitcoin's internal workings, perhaps my concerns are unwarranted.

The technical issues in crypto-currency will get worked out over time. There will be numerous scares and potential roadblocks along the way. Bitcoin is the most likely contender for the crypto-currency that everyone uses and until and if that changes, then Bitcoin must be assumed to be the one which will model the price curves displayed in the following quote.

The main thing you need to know is don't sell BTC ever (unless you want to speculate). Hang on to it for spending as a currency at much higher prices than it is today as it becomes 100 - 1000 times more adopted than it is now:

I expected a correction because the price went too high too quickly. Most of the time when we see it spike high like that, it will come back a little.

They will play you as well, because you'll be the one who sells too early when the price rocket goes into a phase transition run to ATHs. They will eventually do that after they done shaking weak hands out. Your stance can be characterized as another form of weak hand because of selling too soon into a bull run.

The first bubble to $1200 in 2013 was the first hump of the typical new technology invesment. The second major hump is the big enchilada and you should never sell except possibly to trade to altcoins to increase your BTC, if you are so inclined and are astute at such speculation.

[iamnotback]

Per my prior comment post, Rothschilds is forcing the Establishment (politicians) in the USA to double-down on their corruption to avoid prison and sustain their power:

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/north_america/2016-u-s-presidential-election/never-ending-conflict-of-interest/

So fabricating a war with Russia is still on the table to prevent Trump from becoming Prez.

[iamnotback]

I been emailing our entire discussion about gold this past week to Martin Armstrong.

He has replied to r0ach, sloanf, John999, freshman777 and rest of their cohort goldbugs.

You can thus be damn sure he read my emails and that he is ignoring my point about Rothschilds controlling Wikileaks.

COMMENT: Marty, the gold bugs are at it again desperately trying to say you are wrong as always and just misrepresent whatever they can. They acknowledge you called for new highs in the Dow, but claim even that was not until 2013 when I read about your forecast back in 2011 in Barrons. They seem to be so desperate to try to prove you wrong yet they have never been right. They do not understand anything about markets. You are correct. They are as bad as politicians preaching the same nonsense and then misrepresent your record to tell lies. They do not mention you said gold would rally up to 1362 and back down. Unbelievable how dishonest and unethical these people are especially ——–.


Thank you for being straight up

KW

REPLY: The gold promoters have a single agenda and are not students of the market. They are just wrong on their theories, and you are right, they are like politicians. Every election is vote for me for change. It seems like vote for me because I have been less wrong than my opponent. They cast everything into right or wrong and shun trying to learn anything the markets are telling us. They cannot learn because they have a predetermined fixed image of how the world should be. They only focus on gold and cannot see what else exists in the world or how everything is connected. They function the same as central bankers who try to talk markets up by giving false impressions of reality. It’s a shame how many people they ruin because they are fixed on one scenario (And yes, the forecast for new a high was made at the bottom of the ECM back in 2011 when Barrons reported that forecast). The lift-off for the Dow to move to new highs with our first target 18500 could NEVER have been correct if gold did not also peak in 2011 and turn down. They have fought that decline all the way.

Look. We need fools on the other side of reality in order to trade against them. They are the fuel that makes markets move. It’s a shame how many people lost money lining the pockets of bankers because of these people. Nothing happened on October 1 when the world was coming to an end because the IMF included the Chinese yuan in the SDR. They thought that Shanghai would start trading “real” gold, not paper, and that New York would have collapsed by now. Their scenarios are childish and absurd to say the least. They have no respect for people. They are like Hillary: it’s all about them.

This is a battle of us against them. They are on the side of the establishment, preaching the same story that made the bankers rich and selling into every high they chased up the flagpole

[iamnotback]

To my BCT friends who are goldbugs, the reason I speak frankly is because I want you to look at the situation objectively. I know from my own infatuation in the past with precious metals, that the drug of fighting back against the system is very intoxicating.

But the fact is that absent our existing governance and monetary system, a power vacuum forms, which sucks in roaming armed gangs which then gives rise to warlords. The warlords are the market makers. Feudalism. Power is a fact of physics and nature.

The only way your fantasy of a silver dime monetary barter system would take form is if you have an organized community with governance, security, and enshrining silver dimes as the monetary system to give it the confidence it needs. And then some market makers to provided the liquidity between debt, silver dimes, and production. And you have to then provide for defense against more powerful invaders, so your community can't be too small.

If you don't understand how governance, market makers (i.e. power-brokers), and the economy are all dependent on each other, then you of course will make silly fantasies about people trading silver dimes as a fall back option.

Understanding power vacuums, the power-law distribution of wealth in nature, etc.. are critical to forming a rational assessment of the future.

Money has always been what people trust and have confidence in. This doesn't mean the metal itself, but as Armstrong has explained many times it was the stamp on the metal. Even when the invaders took over the Roman Empire, they used the stamps on the coins from the former Empire because it was more trusted.

Bitcoin (crypto-currency on a blockchain) enable trustless money, where we don't have to trust any authority. We trust the decentralized protocol. Now that was the ideal. Unfortunately Satoshi's proof-of-work centralizes and thus we end up trusting Gregory Maxwell and the Chinese mining cartel.

So crypto-currency is not quite ready for being independent of the powers-that-be yet.

Someone may invent a solution. I happen to know someone who claims he may have such a solution. We'll see...

Question for you.

What is the most ideal money system?

In the now Id suppose this would be the system with the most liquidity and fungibility.

However if one was to theorize what the most ideal money system was, what would it

There is no perfect static one. Nothing static will ever be perfect, because static means we can't exist. Our existence is predicated on friction and thus change via irreversibility of space-time. I wrote about this recently in several places (see Economic Devastation, see one of my blogs on Steemit, and see some recent comment posts and also wrote about this on Github, don't have time to dig this up, ... google my name and "light cones").

The ideal money system is always changing. It is the one that enables society to move forward, as the needs of society changed.

As I have explained several years ago in my seminal articles which CoinCube cited, during the Industrial Age we needed to store capital in a way that maximized the economies-of-scale of constructing factories, i.e. maximizing efficiency of labor and technical capital. Whereas, now in the Knowledge Age we need to maximize decentralization and thus diversity of maximization-of-the-division-of-labor.

This is why now physical money can't move us forward. Gold and silver could only take us back to a Dark Age. We must move forward, because the degrees-of-freedom in society had shifted due to technological advancement. I would need to write another essay to explain this in more detail and don't have the time nor cognitive energy to do it now.

As Dmitry Orlov points out, everyone's priority is on food, security, and transportation. Direct trade of these is more valued than some metal which can't be traded for these needs, because these metals are not liquid.

Thinking towards your better then steemit line of thought. The next generation social network would do well to focus on these things. Allow the economy(trade of goods and services) to flourish freely. Decentralize food preparation and distribution. (Ie: uber/air bnb like: you cook some extra food and use a local service to sell and deliver it, build a rep, etc). Decentralize security, neighborhood militia, cop liasons, neighborhood watch, etc. Decentralize transportation, uber.

(Decentralization in this case, still uses a network as the centralizer, however it allows regular people to participate. Ie: gives the purpose..a job, when no ones hiring)

Disagree. IMO, the better Steemit I am working on can't focus on physical world things, because that doesn't appear to me be the low hanging fruit. The virtual world moves at much greater degrees-of-freedom (a form of efficiency in the sense of potential energy). Once you've onboarded the virtual ecosystem, it can then also take over the physical realm as an after effect of already conquering the world.

[iamnotback]

With modern day fiat money it isn't necessary for the value of the metal to be equal to the value of the stamp, rather it can be much less. The $100 bills I use do not contain $100 of paper.

I expected that you would end up saying something along these lines. But this has evidently nothing to do with the trust that people reveal towards precious metals. You seem to have massively forgotten what you started with. Namely, that the trust that people have toward a gold specie doesn't depend on what this specie is made from, but only on the stamp of it.

You are paraphrasing me incorrectly. I wrote:

Money has always been what people trust and have confidence in. This doesn't mean the metal itself, but as Armstrong has explained many times it was the stamp on the metal. Even when the invaders took over the Roman Empire, they used the stamps on the coins from the former Empire because it was more trusted.

By "money" I obviously mean what people trust to be currency (a universal unit-of-exchange). This has nothing to do with chunks of metal (in whatever form) hoarded for speculation and investment. You are conflating orthogonal concerns

The problem is that the very metal these chunks were minted from was considered money (in whatever form and state), not the stamp impressed on it as you and your buddy Armstrong erroneously claim. In other words, people trusted the metal, not the stamp.

You continue to conflate personal value system with PUBLIC CONFIDENCE in the stamp. A person will weigh the risk of lost of PUBLIC CONFIDENCE in the stamp against their personal assessment of the metal value, and the fact that PUBLIC CONFIDENCE in the currency is required for it to be a liquid unit-of-exchange (i.e. a personal assessment of metal value is relatively illiquid if there is not State endorsed PUBLIC CONFIDENCE in the stamp). This is why when PUBLIC CONFIDENCE in the stamp was peaking, the coins were able to be heavily debased but then as emperors were disposed every decade or less then it was necessary to increase the metal content in order to gain enough PUBLIC CONFIDENCE.

Moving the capital to more fortified location that could better leverage trade between East and West also helped Constantine establish more PUBLIC CONFIDENCE so the Byzantium Empire could carry on as Rome sank into the dust. And co-opting Christianity was another in the confluence of factors establishing PUBLIC CONFIDENCE. And then the Byzantine coins were heavily debased anew over time because PUBLIC CONFIDENCE in the stamp was high.

I have already told that people paid a relatively small fee (several percentages) for having royal coins minted from the gold or other coins they had brought to the royal mint. And that fee was the real "market" price of the stamp. This can be very easily explained by the fact that every king or emperor had been minting and accepting as legal tender his own coin, so the stamp itself cost virtually nothing. For the simple reason that rulers back then had been killed, assassinated, and overthrown every other day. The invaders that took over the Roman Empire fit into this scheme of things perfectly...

Seigniorage is exclusively for the State when PUBLIC CONFIDENCE is high. For the $100 seigniorage is about $99.9.

Just imagine what your 100 dollar bill would be worth if it had been outlawed every time a new POTUS came to power

Indeed one of the reasons the US dollar has high PUBLIC CONFIDENCE (even internationally) is because unlike European currencies which are routinely canceled, the dollar has never been (yet). That is why the stamp is worth $100.


But I am repeating myself:

But you still can't escape the simple question why authorities continued to use precious metals for minting coins until very recent...

They debased the coins in the Roman Empire and got away with it up to a point, because people trust the stamp and the strength of emperor stamped on it. But eventually the emperors were being overthrown every decade, so the stamp had to be backed by more metal value in order to bring back the confidence.

Also modern banking and paper money had not yet been invented in Western Europe yet, and I believe not until Florence, Italy if I am not mistake. China had already invented paper money though.

So if the government is perceived to be strong and stable (e.g. the USA since at least WW2), then that government can debase the hell out of their fiat, which is exactly what the Fed has been doing with the world's reserve currency and formerly strongest military power.

And why people started evading such coins when the authorities began debasing them

No one stopped using FRNs and zinc pennies and quarters. The USA government is still perceived to be strong. But we are witnessing the fall of the USA empire now. Exactly as predicted by Armstrong's model. In fact, Armstrong's model for the US empire peaked on the day Edward Snowden made his final move of no return for releasing the NSA exposé.

[deisik]

The problem is that the very metal these chunks were minted from was considered money (in whatever form and state), not the stamp impressed on it as you and your buddy Armstrong erroneously claim. In other words, people trusted the metal, not the stamp.

You continue to conflate personal value system with PUBLIC CONFIDENCE in the stamp. A person will weigh the risk of lost of PUBLIC CONFIDENCE in the stamp against their personal assessment of the metal value, and the fact that PUBLIC CONFIDENCE in the currency is required for it to be a liquid unit-of-exchange (i.e. a personal assessment of metal value is relatively illiquid if there is not State endorsed PUBLIC CONFIDENCE in the stamp). This is why when PUBLIC CONFIDENCE in the stamp was peaking, the coins were able to be heavily debased but then as emperors were disposed every decade or less then it was necessary to increase the metal content in order to gain enough PUBLIC CONFIDENCE

You are trying to hide the lack of substance behind verbiage. Public confidence is not a thing that exists by itself. It is an aggregate of personal attitudes and preferences ("personal value system" as you called it) toward something (in that case, the stamp, as you put it). You won't make me believe that people trusted the stamp when it changed a few times during their lifetime. In the early history of money the stamp meant essentially nothing. In Europe, people didn't use gold coins in everyday life. Such coins were used for paying taxes and for hoarding (by gold content and totally irrespective of the stamp minted on them). In other words, the public confidence in the stamp was negligible beside the public confidence in the metal itself...

Otherwise, rulers of all sorts might have safely used fiat instead of precious metals

[deisik]

...

deisik

You put that very well re cherry picking dates, I kept my remark brief just by showing 2016 and the 16 or so years before as examples.  Nice graph!  The inflation-adjusted figures are nice to see as well.

Cherry pickers take note, even looking at long-ish time frames one could make weird arguments like that the inflation adjusted price of gold was LOWER in 2003 than in 1934.

Yet the macro-trend is that gold is up nicely vs. dollars since 1913.

Also note how the nominal price of gold has performed extremely well vs. the US$ in that the dollar has lost 97% or so in gold terms...

Very instructive graph, thanks for posting it

But you should keep in mind that data prior to 1933 may be misleading. Since the establishment of the Fed in 1913, there were at least two types of the dollar in circulation in the US. One kind, the true dollar, which was also known as the United States Note, was fully backed up by gold back then. The other, the fake dollar, has become known as the Federal Reserve Note because it was emitted by the Fed (and still is). The latter was only partially backed up by gold, and soon after gold had been banned from private ownership in 1933, the redemption of these notes for gold was cancelled completely...

And that was about time when dollar had been de facto divorced with gold

[iamnotback]

The problem is that the very metal these chunks were minted from was considered money (in whatever form and state), not the stamp impressed on it as you and your buddy Armstrong erroneously claim. In other words, people trusted the metal, not the stamp.

You continue to conflate personal value system with PUBLIC CONFIDENCE in the stamp. A person will weigh the risk of lost of PUBLIC CONFIDENCE in the stamp against their personal assessment of the metal value, and the fact that PUBLIC CONFIDENCE in the currency is required for it to be a liquid unit-of-exchange (i.e. a personal assessment of metal value is relatively illiquid if there is not State endorsed PUBLIC CONFIDENCE in the stamp). This is why when PUBLIC CONFIDENCE in the stamp was peaking, the coins were able to be heavily debased but then as emperors were disposed every decade or less then it was necessary to increase the metal content in order to gain enough PUBLIC CONFIDENCE

You are trying to hide the lack of substance behind verbiage. Public confidence is not a thing that exists by itself. It is an aggregate of personal attitudes and preferences ("personal value system" as you called it) toward something (in that case, the stamp, as you put it). You won't make me believe that people trusted the stamp when it changed a few times during their lifetime. In the early history of money the stamp meant essentially nothing. In Europe, people didn't use gold coins in everyday life. Such coins were used for paying taxes and for hoarding (by gold content and totally irrespective of the stamp minted on them). In other words, the public confidence in the stamp was negligible beside the public confidence in the metal itself...

Otherwise, rulers of all sorts might have safely used fiat instead of precious metals

I am sorry because you speaking bat shit gibberish now.

You accept a $100 bill because you believe that the PUBLIC CONFIDENCE is high and that everyone will honor the $100 stamped value.

[deisik]

The problem is that the very metal these chunks were minted from was considered money (in whatever form and state), not the stamp impressed on it as you and your buddy Armstrong erroneously claim. In other words, people trusted the metal, not the stamp.

You continue to conflate personal value system with PUBLIC CONFIDENCE in the stamp. A person will weigh the risk of lost of PUBLIC CONFIDENCE in the stamp against their personal assessment of the metal value, and the fact that PUBLIC CONFIDENCE in the currency is required for it to be a liquid unit-of-exchange (i.e. a personal assessment of metal value is relatively illiquid if there is not State endorsed PUBLIC CONFIDENCE in the stamp). This is why when PUBLIC CONFIDENCE in the stamp was peaking, the coins were able to be heavily debased but then as emperors were disposed every decade or less then it was necessary to increase the metal content in order to gain enough PUBLIC CONFIDENCE

You are trying to hide the lack of substance behind verbiage. Public confidence is not a thing that exists by itself. It is an aggregate of personal attitudes and preferences ("personal value system" as you called it) toward something (in that case, the stamp, as you put it). You won't make me believe that people trusted the stamp when it changed a few times during their lifetime. In the early history of money the stamp meant essentially nothing. In Europe, people didn't use gold coins in everyday life. Such coins were used for paying taxes and for hoarding (by gold content and totally irrespective of the stamp minted on them). In other words, the public confidence in the stamp was negligible beside the public confidence in the metal itself...

Otherwise, rulers of all sorts might have safely used fiat instead of precious metals

I am sorry because you speaking bat shit gibberish now.

You accept a $100 bill because you believe that the PUBLIC CONFIDENCE is high and that everyone will honor the $100 stamped value.

And so what? This doesn't in the least mean that people always had, have or will have that public confidence in the stamp you are talking about. By any means, it is not a given. And as I said before, rulers from ancient and medieval times wouldn't have been using precious metals to back up their stamps if this confidence hadn't had more to do to with the metal itself than the stamp they had a habit of engraving themselves on. In fact, public confidence in the stamp is a rather recent phenomenon, and still far from being universal at that:



Not all animals are born equal

[OROBTC]

...

deisik #2557

Well yes, but I was actually agreeing with you, I deliberately cherry picked that 1933 date to show an anomaly.

You just made a good point re how conditions change through time (dollar losing gold backing).

Cherry picking time periods for price comparisons / changes is indeed a tricky art...

[iamnotback]

And so what? This doesn't in the least mean that people always had, have or will have that public confidence in the stamp you are talking about.

I am so glad what I have a functioning brain stem. I can't imagine what it must be like to be so intellectually handicapped.

You obviously are unable to comprehend that the appraisal of the stability and longevity of PUBLIC CONFIDENCE that we make is based on how long we will anticipate holding that $100 bill before we spend it.

Obviously my point has been (in numerous responses to you before this one) that when PUBLIC CONFIDENCE is deemed to be lower (or less stable) by the public, then the government is forced to institute other measures to restore sufficient confidence in the currency, such as by lowering the seignoriage (i.e. increasing the metal content value) and other measures.

Please this point is irrefutable and has been made by myself over and over again in response to your numerous myopic comments. It you still can't get it, there is no hope of you ever getting the irrefutable point.

I have been very patient and respectful to you, but there is a limit. You need to try harder to think, before you post. You are obviously not thinking.

[deisik]

And so what? This doesn't in the least mean that people always had, have or will have that public confidence in the stamp you are talking about.

I am so glad what I have a functioning brain stem. I can't imagine what it must be like to be so intellectually handicapped.

You obviously are unable to comprehend that the appraisal of the stability and longevity of PUBLIC CONFIDENCE that we make is based on how long we will anticipate holding that $100 bill before we spend it.

Obviously my point has been (in numerous responses to you before this one) that when PUBLIC CONFIDENCE is deemed to be lower (or less stable) by the public, then the government is forced to institute other measures to restore sufficient confidence in the currency, such as by lowering the seignoriage (i.e. increasing the metal content value) and other measures.

Please this point is irrefutable and has been made by myself over and over again in response to your numerous myopic comments. It you still can't get it, there is no hope of you ever getting the irrefutable point.

I have been very patient and respectful to you, but there is a limit. You need to try harder to think, before you post. You are obviously not

I guess you should read again what exactly I didn't agree with as well as what you (or, rather, your buddy Armstrong) claimed. Since you obviously didn't care about that (which is always useful if you are going to honestly defend what you challenge or claim) nor did you even care to keep in mind your own original claim, I'm quoting below your post and my reply to it (relevant parts), with emphasis added:

Money has always been what people trust and have confidence in. This doesn't mean the metal itself, but as Armstrong has explained many times it was the stamp on the metal...

I disagree that that trust in the case of hard currencies has anything to do with authorities and the stamp on the metal they make...

Now tell me, wtf are you bringing forth the example of $100 bill and now talk about "other measures to restore sufficient confidence in the currency"? Would minting coins from a precious metal pass as one such measure, especially if your public confidence in the stamp heavily and massively hits the floor (i.e. goes down to zero)?

What is your point exactly?

[iamnotback]

What is your point exactly?

We've reached the junction in our discussion where if you weren't able to get the point by rereading the discussion, then it won't likely be productive for me to repeat it or attempt to rephrase it.

[iamnotback]

Interesting week ahead:

If you want to see corruption at the extreme, Hillary could legally pardon herself.

The Quest to Create World War III

Whatever the United States and United Nations can do to isolate Russia they seem to be doing without any regard for the consequences. Saudi Arabia retained its seat on the UN Human Rights Council while Russia was kicked off and Croatia replaced them. When it comes to human rights, one must ask, who made this judgement? All they seem to be doing is trying desperately to isolate Russia and to provoke war instead of peace.