First time on Zig Forums but can someone tell me how gold correlates with modern currency and isnt that why mugaffi was...

The rising price of gold is seem as a threat to the USD as a world reserve currency. Google those exact words and see how many articles pop up saying exactly that

Hell if anything makes more sense the elites killed Gadaffi to get their hands on that 143 tons of gold, not sweating ballets over whether some kooky sand nigger dictator is going to upend the whole Western Powers and China minting coins with his face on it out of vanity.

This is the reason they killed Saddam, JFK, and Hitler

Zig Forums is a terrible place where retards hawk their shitcoins like the 2018 coin collapse didn't happen.

Well those articles are wrong, gold becoming the reserve currency is laughable considering the financial crises of the 20th century were predicated on gold’s inability to keep pace with the sheer size of the economy. We haven’t had a true gold standard for a century

Then just hold cash. Real-estate is in a bubble, stocks are over bought. Go ahead and keep millions of dollars in USD moneybags. I'm sure what we're seeing in the market is just hype, and totally not a predictable repeat of cycles seen through history.

Attached: table-3.png (432x262, 11.6K)

The bankers also have the most gold. Sure it would set the, back but you have to remember the first swindlers were silver and gold bankers. That’s why Jews have gold and silver in their names frequently.

The true way to win is create your own currency and control it yourself and reject Jewish currency

Saddam was killed because his loose confederacy of Islamism and pan-Arabism finally imploded and the Halliburton presidency decided to make some sweet dosh off failed American foreign policy

Also Hitler’s monetary policy was literally Keynesian until he went full retard and canned Schacht for Goering

Why would I hold a unit of account, it’s quite literally meant to be spent on assets. We should’ve had the bancor instead of USD but the brits were too fucked up post WW2 to get it done

A gold backed currency would immediately begin making moves to become a reserve currency due to its lack of depreciation over time. No doubt other factors influenced the killing of Ghaddafi, but the threat existed that he would rally Middle Eastern powers around a gold backed currency that they would use as a reserve over the USD. It wouldn't be immediate but it would hurt the position of the USD which has a very prominent position not only as a reserve currency but a main currency in the Middle East. Even if only the oil producing nations of the Middle East began to store trillions in gold you would have seen a finical crisis develop across the world in which all would being moving towards gold and silver backed currencies over debt backed.

Gold is both asset against monetary instability and money itself. It's rise is both precursor and signal of if not fiats death, then radical change. Seeing it rise will be sending those signals to others that this threat instead of mere speculation, is a real possiblity.

>none of this explains how a gold backed currency would disrupt existing fiat markets
Gresham's Law would explain the threat. The dollar's terrible performance compared to gold (as seen in the gold price, seen as a measure of the dollars poor performance) illustrates the market's preference. To point to a centralized authority who not only is the final arbiter of what constitutes the currency but also assassinates anyone who even attempts to establish a gold-backed alternative to make the point that fiat is better doesn't really make the point. The gold standard was the backdrop to the fastest rate of economic growth that happened between 1870 and 1914 and created the US manufacturing behemoth. The standard of living was propelled higher and maintained for most under this system all while facilitating global commerce.

>whatever fairness or stability is ostensibly inherent to gold is completely irrelevant to the superior liquidity of a fiat system
What good does a superior liquid asset do if it is bleeding purchasing power? I don't accept your premise that:
>All that matters to a globalized economy is how fast capital can move around
Gold backed currency moves around just fine as accounting exists so an immediate receivership is not necessary. It seems you're underselling the quality of stability (a characteristic of great importance).

I would argue that the price of gold is much lower than where it should be due to manipulation in the markets. That said, I don't believe we are returning to a gold standard.

No one is considering the fact that THE MOST VALUABLE asset that has emerged in the past decade is DATA. More data = better decision making and therefore, higher earnings. DATA is the new basis for the economies of the future. That's why oracle projects like Chainlink are grabbing so much attention. We are entering into a Databased economy. Gold will certainly go up a great deal, and silver, with the coming years, but expect data to become the new currency. If we're ever going to introduce something like a UBI, then the only thing they could give back is more data. Shopping habits, eating habits, sleeping habits, how often you shit, how much CO2 you exhale, etc, etc. All that is shit that can be collected and used to propagate this never ending cycle of growth. Data collection only expands year over year, and methods to parse and put that data into use keep advancing as well. This shit is just going to keep going until the population suffers a huge blow.

?? The security of Saudi Arabia depends on their enforcement of OPEC dollar-for-oil trade, no one would have jumped into some cockamamie alternative-reserve scheme except maybe Iran, furthermore at this point the US dollar as a growth mechanism for the developing world cements it far more as the reserve currency than oil does, at most Libya was hedging against hyperinflation of ITS OWN currency given the situation in Lebanon and elsewhere with the Arab Spring. A prescient move given that civil war shortly broke out

It would disrupt every form of global fiat banking, because their dinar would be legitimately backed by a singular asset, thus making their currency more valuable than anything in the modern world. This would especially upend the euro, because anyone could picture a scenario where they send their money to Libya immediately and get a much better return by just letting it sit in a Libyan bank. Ot would force other nations to do the same, or at least make large steps in that direction. You think the Federal Reserve is going to just let that happen?

>The true way to win is create your own currency and control it yourself
But the point is that a currency is nothing more than a claim to money. To just print slips of paper and expect others to give scarce resources and limited time in exchange is not realistic. Even the fiat we trade now gained its acceptance by first being tied to actual money (gold) before it was incrementally walked toward total fiat. The paper money is riding on the fumes of the expectation that the next guy will take it (an assumption that is starting to show cracks). The real games didn't begin until the gold-backing was removed in favor of pure fiat.

The best money is gold/silver as I posted previously:

Attached: WTF Happened in 1971?.png (1920x1080, 851.51K)

>Gold backed currency moves around just fine as accounting exists so an immediate receivership is not necessary. It seems you're underselling the quality of stability (a characteristic of great importance).

Don’t get me wrong, I would love for there to be an asset that is stable and doesn’t get printed into the ground to artificially push growth, but the unfortunate reality is that at a large enough scale, on a long enough time frame, any kind of pegged money supply will cause deflation. there is also the problem of competition, in that according to the rules of the game the fastest growth means the greater market share and therefore control, meaning whoever pushes their growth the hardest tends to win the competition

How would they get a better return, would Libya have offered a higher interest rate than the usual boomer roi? why not just buy gold?

Gold backed currency moves around just fine as accounting exists so an immediate receivership is not necessary. It seems you're underselling the quality of stability (a characteristic of great importance).

I agree that technology and the monetization of data are one way we can maybe get away from the shitshow we have

The problem right now,

Who owns your data? Right now you do NOT own your data. Companies essentially steal it from you, and then use it to sell you items after carefully examining your purchasing habits. They learn your psychological profile through your habits, and then target you. That data can also be sold, on top of selling products to you.

The next movement that needs to be had is a data rights movement. We could have a UBI IF we gave people the rights to their own data. If you wish to retain your data, then that should be your right, however, if people could monetize their data in return for routine deposits, we could move onto the next economic structure. This is all high level conceptual stuff, but I think it could be an economically viable system.

>any kind of pegged money supply will cause deflation
Deflation is not an economic death sentence. Between 1880 and 1896, US prices fell by 30% and real GDP increased by 85%, far outpacing the growth post '71 while ensuring a rising purchasing power for the common man and steadily rising standard of living. Growth is not good when it is not sustainable. What good is profligate money creation to inflate multiple bubbles and over-production (another way to characterize rapid modern growth) if resources are squandered and further printing is "necessary" to lift a burst bubble economy allowing further distortions in the market? Gold also facilitated bond yields to find a lower equilibrium (thanks to the store of value function ensuring strong money and investor confidence) allowing for healthy, sustainable growth to build an actually productive economy.

>if people could monetize their data in return for routine deposits, we could move onto the next economic structure.
interesting concept

>What good is profligate money creation to inflate multiple bubbles and over-production (another way to characterize rapid modern growth)

I wouldn’t call it “good” insomuch that I would argue that a nation state must push whatever production allows it to best compete for and dominate its share of the global market, therefore retaining some measure of QoL for its inhabitants in a hypercompetitive world. A system built on fairness and accountability is lovely in theory but struggles to exist outside of a vacuum, with all of the attendant problems we see now. We know that fiat is a kind of pandora’s box, which by the bounds of game theory requires that the optimal strategy is to use it, or someone else will just do it instead. It’s lose-lose even when you win

Data sovereignty is a cool idea, it’s absurd how long corps have been allowed to steal data but that’s bureaucratic capture for you

Right? The problem with debt-based economies, as we've seen, is someone is going to end up holding the bad. It's a ponzi scheme, pure and simple.

A data based economy means, people sell their data, they get currency, companies buy that data to tailor their products/advertising/services towards what the dataset implies, and then consumers use their currency to buy products and services. It creates an ecosystem where money can be "created" through data (which has value, though intangible), and can grow perpetually, so long as advancements in data collection and the population grows. This is also why I believe oracle projects like Chainlink are so valuable.

But these are just some dumb neets thoughts on the future of economics with only a couple classes on the subject under his belt and a wild imagination.

Attached: 1596669994272.jpg (431x535, 35.54K)

I still don't understand what makes a product like chain link valuable? Anyone can take the code, fork it, or clone it and make a new variant.
I don't understand why any single coin is worth anything when people can just create a new one to do what they need.
Say you are a company and you need to track items in a warehouse for sales and you are going to use blockchain technology why would you not just roll your own variant for your needs?

Mainly expenses, it costs a lot to hire developers to write even a small variant on a fork. Same reason why I build phone systems for a living; in many cases its easier to outsource. Most companies don't want to deal with the pain of making a variant, and are instead more comfortable paying to have someone else handle a service. Plus, it also places liability on an outside party.

>A system built on fairness and accountability is lovely in theory but struggles to exist outside of a vacuum
It did exist outside of a vacuum in the form of the gold backing. Again, it facilitated the fastest rate of economic growth, lowered prices, and maintained a stable currency that erases many problems and boosted investments. FOREX exchanges would become irrelevant with a stable means to measure/convert between difference currencies and erase the uncertainty of specific nations' fiat credibility. Many problems we see now are the result of fiat currency. Fiat allows governments to create bubble economies, distort investment (think FED buying junk bonds), establish a privileged reserve currency that allows for export of inflation and subsequent loss of manufacturing, erosion of the purchasing power, etc.