“In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists’ tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists’ antagonism toward the gold standard.” Any takers?
Sounds like Ron Paul…
I just checked, Greenspan 1966. http://www.321gold.com/fed/greenspan/1966.html
It’s an ancient quote from Greenspan constantly trumpeted by the hard money folks to show that they aren’t flat-earthers.
Yup, the Maestro himself.
He said that on his 75th Birthday party in 1966…
hold on… There is big difference between someone had one opinion and changed it 40 years later. In 1966, the whole world’s monetary system is based on gold. But whoever holds that gold standard view now is very antievolution and anti progressive. Those small group of people include the economic illiterate Ron Paul.
I wrote it.
I’ll never understand gold’s value in banking or anywhere else. It has a functional value but mainly a perceived exchange value. I’ll leave the explanation up to Baudrillard or some other dead Frenchman.
I thought Greespan once I saw “confiscation.”
This CFA guy Logan Flatt (www.PowerWealth.com) is always harping on the need for a gold standard. Seems pretty arcane to me…
Maybe I am really dumb but the statement “there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation” makes a lot of sense to me. So does the rest of the statement. Let me know what I am missing.
AlphaSeeker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > hold on… > > There is big difference between someone had one > opinion and changed it 40 years later. In 1966, > the whole world’s monetary system is based on > gold. > > But whoever holds that gold standard view now is > very antievolution and anti progressive. Those > small group of people include the economic > illiterate Ron Paul. I don’t agree 100% with Ron Paul on gold, but I hardly think you can call him economically illiterate. Even if you disagree with his monetary ideas, there’s more to economics than just this. He’s been spot on about a number of other things, for example Fannie/Freddie, which he called years ago. And how is the gold standard antievolution?
needhelp Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Maybe I am really dumb but the statement “there is > no way to protect savings from confiscation > through inflation” makes a lot of sense to me. These days you buy TIPS. In the old days, buy assets. > So > does the rest of the statement. Let me know what I > am missing. Google “gold standard disadvantages”. Or you might ask AG why he changed his mind.
He became Chairman of the Federal Reserve where he would be impotent if there was a gold standard.