A recent talking point re-emerges in another light....

[Technopaegnion Tapinosis]

Not really. The independence of the Fed has little to do with governments
buying dollars during crises. In fact, it's not a consideration at all for
most buyers of dollars. The dollar, as you note here, is a haven in
difficult or uncertain economic periods (short or long) because, as you
also note, it has an excellent history. But it is the dollars very special
function as the currency of the world, its liquidity, its size as a
currency, and the size the markets that trade in dollars, that make the
dollar the currency the world turns to, bit only in times of trouble and
undertainty, but all the time. Two nations that do little business with the
USA, and who hold few secutities in dollars, will still hold and trade in
dollars. It's not the Fed or anything political that motivates this, but
the fact that it is in the dollar, as it is in English, that  business gets
done in the world. The political play, say the surrent S&P move into the
assessment of political risks, is a trend that may undermine the dollar in
time, so the perception of an independent Fed seems, these days, important,
but it matters almost not at all.

On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 6:08 PM, <malignd at aol.com> wrote:

> The gold standard is absurd.  If the world's currencies devalued to such
> an extent that everyone demanded gold, then gold would be equally
> worthless, except to make jewelry with.
>
> Also, if this hasn't been discusssed (I haven't read the entire thread)
> the independence of the Fed is of great importance to the dollar's being
> the world's currency.  Nations are not going to invest in the dollar if it
> is subject to the policies of changing administrations.  The dollar has
> never failed, not through two world wars.  When things go bad, governments
> buy dollars.  The independence of the Fed is one big reason.
>
>
>  -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Colter <recoignishon at gmail.com>
> To: Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at verizon.net>
> Cc: pynchon-l <pynchon-l at waste.org>
> Sent: Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:29 am
> Subject: Re: A recent talking point re-emerges in another light....
>
>   Would it be fair to say all money must be back'd by Energy?
>
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at verizon.net>wrote:
>
>> On 1/25/2012 12:42 PM, David Morris wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.trutv.com/**conspiracy/government/ron-**
>>> paul/gallery.html?curPhoto=11<http://www.trutv.com/conspiracy/government/ron-paul/gallery.html?curPhoto=11>
>>>
>>> The New World Order
>>>
>>> "[Is there] an international conspiracy to overthrow our government?"
>>> Paul said in 2003, repeating the question of an audience member at his
>>> Austin speech. "The answer is 'Yes'. I think there are 25,000
>>> individuals that have used offices of powers, and they are in our
>>> Universities and they are in our Congresses, and they believe in One
>>> World Government. And if you believe in One World Government, then you
>>> are talking about undermining National Sovereignty and you are talking
>>> about setting up something that you could well call a dictatorship -
>>> and those plans are there!"
>>>
>>> Ron Paul's call for a return to the Gold Standard are clear proof that
>>> he's w/o a clue about economics and monetary dynamics.  But neither do
>>> most people...
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hey, I got an idea.  Why doesn't the Fed just SAY it has enough gold
>> buried somewhere to "back" all the money it creates.  Of course, the public
>> would have to take this on faith.  It wouldn't be possible to actually
>> count or weigh this much gold.  So in the end the value of money depends on
>> trust.  Like so much else in this world.
>>
>> Approached from another angle, is there enough gold in the world, above
>> or below, ground to "back" but a tiny fraction of the money supply?  Any
>> kind of conceivable "gold standard" would just add an unnecessary, though
>> minor,  complication to something that is complicated enough already.
>>
>>  Saying all money must be backed by gold  is kind of like saying that all
>> books have to be printed on paper.
>>
>> Good-bye Kindle.
>>
>>
>> P
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Paul Mackin<mackin.paul at verizon.net**>
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's my impression that spinners of this particular conspiracy theory,
>>>>  espoused by Ron Paul and others, don't really understand how money and
>>>> banking work, or of American economic history.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20120125/e6e2bf5f/attachment.html>