Moneyness by FOFOA

English language haystack
Post Reply
User avatar
Indiana Jones
Freegold Member
Posts: 4765
Joined: 05 Oct 2011, 16:00
Contact:

Re: Moneyness by FOFOA

Post by Indiana Jones » 08 Jan 2012, 23:30

@ Malcolm

Maybe Franck Biancheri (founder of leap2020) is more realistic.

He is up to date about European political and economical history and is advised by a huge team of researchers. He describes that in fact the U.S. and the U.K are dead broke and instable. English and American politicians are largely influenced by wholesale bankers in the current monetary system. Those bankers are also in charge of the English and American media.

The Eurotop on December 8, 2011 is, according to Biancheri, a historical momentum and if the Euro/Nation will survive 2012 it has the potention to evolve into an anchor of the western world. No guarantees, but the best chances.
Meanwhile the English and American politicians, as well as their financial institutions and media, will do anything to bash the Euro because this is distracting Joe Sixpack from the real problem ….. the GBP problem and the USD problem.

Biancheri describes that the USD World currency is a dead cat bounce that has to be replaced by a new (digital) World Currency basket that includes gold.

As far as my own opinion is concerned, I think that Biancheri isn’t far from the truth aka reality.
-He seems to agree with James Sinclair that the USD World Currency is dead and has to be replaced by some digital basket (included a gold canary in the Cole mine).
-He seems to agree with fofoa that the Euro has the best chances for stable survival, but without the fofoa-freegold factor.
-He seems to agree with Armstrong that in our entire history, politicians were always spending too much and in the end never accomplished to restore a stable fiscal balance, but disagrees with Armstrong on the fact that the Euro has no chance of survival because financial markets seem to say so.

I’ve read a lot of the fofoa stuff, Sinclair stuff and Armstrong stuff and recently started reading the extended LEAP2020 bulletins and, until now, I believe the Leap2020 theory is the most realistic theory. You can do yourself a favor and subscribe.
http://www.europe2020.org/?lang=en

Grtz. Indy
Everything that needs to be said has already been said.
But since no one was listening, everything must be said again.


User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 32
Joined: 13 Nov 2011, 05:46

Re: Moneyness by FOFOA

Post by Malcolm » 28 Jan 2012, 17:48

Hello Indy,

Thanks for the pointer on Leap2020, but I could use some links. I've hit the site periodically for a couple of years, but get overwhelmed fairly quickly.

As to the various predictions of dead and future currencies, I still like FOFOA's debtor currency vs saver currency distinction. My goal is to understand how to realistically use the various currencies (and physical gold is one of them). I don't want to get emotional about them. They each have their own use as we and our families muddle through. When it comes to currencies, placing trust appropriately can be very rewarding.

Here is a Duisenburg quote I read here that has been on my mind:

"money is a social contract"

Malcolm

User avatar
Indiana Jones
Freegold Member
Posts: 4765
Joined: 05 Oct 2011, 16:00
Contact:

Re: Moneyness by FOFOA

Post by Indiana Jones » 28 Jan 2012, 21:39

Malcolm wrote:Hello Indy,

Thanks for the pointer on Leap2020, but I could use some links. I've hit the site periodically for a couple of years, but get overwhelmed fairly quickly.

As to the various predictions of dead and future currencies, I still like FOFOA's debtor currency vs saver currency distinction. My goal is to understand how to realistically use the various currencies (and physical gold is one of them). I don't want to get emotional about them. They each have their own use as we and our families muddle through. When it comes to currencies, placing trust appropriately can be very rewarding.Here is a Duisenburg quote I read here that has been on my mind:

"money is a social contract"

Malcolm
If you truly want to understand currencies, you really have to read several Martin Armstrong articles. He really does understand currencies.

http://www.martinarmstrong.org/economic_projections.htm

Don't misunderstand me, I'm definitely NOT an Armstrong follower and disagree with the man about the gold price and politics, but he learned me a lot about the function of currencies and the currency regulators.

For example his articles:
aug. 11.2011
Oct. 02.2011
Oct. 14.2011
Nov. 05.2011
Nov. 17.2011
Dec. 09.2011
Jan. 05.2012
Jan. 18.2012

grtz. Indy
Everything that needs to be said has already been said.
But since no one was listening, everything must be said again.

User avatar
Boefke
Silver Member
Posts: 236
Joined: 03 Oct 2011, 17:26
Contact:

Re: Moneyness by FOFOA

Post by Boefke » 28 Jan 2012, 21:47

Malcolm wrote:Hello Indy,

Thanks for the pointer on Leap2020, but I could use some links. I've hit the site periodically for a couple of years, but get overwhelmed fairly quickly.

As to the various predictions of dead and future currencies, I still like FOFOA's debtor currency vs saver currency distinction. My goal is to understand how to realistically use the various currencies (and physical gold is one of them). I don't want to get emotional about them. They each have their own use as we and our families muddle through. When it comes to currencies, placing trust appropriately can be very rewarding.

Here is a Duisenburg quote I read here that has been on my mind:

"money is a social contract"

Malcolm
Coincidence doesn't exist.

Am writing a post were this Duisenberg quote is in also.

"money is a social contract".

I hope to explain the way I look at this quote, and his whole speech.
More later

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 32
Joined: 13 Nov 2011, 05:46

Re: Moneyness by FOFOA

Post by Malcolm » 29 Jan 2012, 15:58

I found an English copy of the speech:
http://www.ecb.int/press/key/date/2002/ ... 09.en.html

I think this is the key paragraph. I've shortened it for emphasis:
"What is money? ...money is defined by the functions it performs, as a means of exchange, a unit of account and a store of value. But, just as importantly, money is also defined by the community for whom it performs these functions. Because it is an economic instrument for each of its users, it is also a political and cultural bond between them. ... Hence, money is, in essence, a social contract. "

Duisenberg writes:
"[The Euro's] success as a social contract is only possible because it is rooted in a second accord, a constitutional contract, between the citizens who own it and the institution to which they have assigned the task of protecting it."

There is no discussion of why the Euro needs protection. Without a discussion of the danger, it isn't clear that a constitutional contract provides any needed protection.

The relationship between 'store of value' and 'means of exchange' is not simple, and probably represents the danger Duisenberg avoids mentioning. 'Means of exchange' might otherwise be 'transactional lubricant' or 'tokens that lower the transactional costs' (transactional costs are high in barter). In short, increasing the supply of tokens facilitates exchange, but fails to honor the 'store of value' principle.

Additionally, Duisenberg never mentions debt. Perhaps, the phrase 'unit of account' alludes to debt.

Duisenberg never inquires into the nature of a good 'monetary' contract, only that it represents one. To propose something for discussion, a good contract must balance the social pressure to overly emphasize the benefits the contract confers on one group versus another. Constitutionalism provides something of an answer to this, but doesn't really clarify much if the question before us is: "What is a fair way for a European nation to default on sovereign debt to the ECB".

Malcolm

User avatar
Indiana Jones
Freegold Member
Posts: 4765
Joined: 05 Oct 2011, 16:00
Contact:

Re: Moneyness by FOFOA

Post by Indiana Jones » 29 Jan 2012, 17:12

Malcolm wrote:[ ...] Additionally, Duisenberg never mentions debt. Perhaps, the phrase 'unit of account' alludes to debt. [ ...]
The Unit of Account sometimes alludes to DEBT:

Image




- and sometimes to TRUST

Image
Everything that needs to be said has already been said.
But since no one was listening, everything must be said again.

User avatar
Boefke
Silver Member
Posts: 236
Joined: 03 Oct 2011, 17:26
Contact:

Re: Moneyness by FOFOA

Post by Boefke » 29 Jan 2012, 19:18

@Malcolm.

You called this the key paragraph. In a way it is a important one yes.

But in a way the answers to your questions come later in an other paragraph.

The euro, probably more than any other currency, represents the mutual confidence at the heart of our community. It is the first currency that has not only severed its link to gold, but also its link to the nation-state. It is not backed by the durability of the metal or by the authority of the state. Indeed, what Sir Thomas More said of gold five hundred years ago – that it was made for men and that it had its value by them – applies very well to the euro.

Think about these 3 sentences. As obvious as they might seem, they're interpretable in various ways.
Indy gave his view. I'm presenting it tomorrow (not fully finished yet).

What's your view on this? I'm curious....

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 32
Joined: 13 Nov 2011, 05:46

Re: Moneyness by FOFOA

Post by Malcolm » 30 Jan 2012, 05:59

Boefke wrote:
Think about these 3 sentences. As obvious as they might seem, they're interpretable in various ways.
Indy gave his view. I'm presenting it tomorrow (not fully finished yet).

What's your view on this? I'm curious....
I equate 'the mutual confidence ... of our community' and my constitutional reference, above. 'Mutual confidence' is something that follows from a well established constitution. Logically, there isn't a problem.

The lines you quote don't inspire me much, though. As Armstrong suggests, confidence grows, then weakens. There is no avoiding the cycles. Mutual confidence may be hard to find in the not too distant future.

Malcolm

User avatar
Boefke
Silver Member
Posts: 236
Joined: 03 Oct 2011, 17:26
Contact:

Re: Moneyness by FOFOA

Post by Boefke » 30 Jan 2012, 09:38

Malcolm wrote:
Boefke wrote:
Think about these 3 sentences. As obvious as they might seem, they're interpretable in various ways.
Indy gave his view. I'm presenting it tomorrow (not fully finished yet).

What's your view on this? I'm curious....
I equate 'the mutual confidence ... of our community' and my constitutional reference, above. 'Mutual confidence' is something that follows from a well established constitution. Logically, there isn't a problem.

The lines you quote don't inspire me much, though. As Armstrong suggests, confidence grows, then weakens. There is no avoiding the cycles. Mutual confidence may be hard to find in the not too distant future.

Malcolm
I think not only a well established constitution is important. The way the Euro is designed as money for the people leaves the people to choose.

The constitution is only important to manage the purchasing power. We decide whether it's well done or not. If not, we can decide to change our savings from the currency, in gold. Not the way it's today, but only physical market.

The way Armstrong looks at it, and the sentence you made......there is no avoiding the cycles tends to a fatalistic way of looking at things. And maybe these cycles do exist. But do they exclude something big to happen such as a monetary shift?

That's my main problem with Armstrong. Where FOFOA encourages his readers to think with him, Armstrong has a very high "listen now" content.

User avatar
Indiana Jones
Freegold Member
Posts: 4765
Joined: 05 Oct 2011, 16:00
Contact:

Re: Moneyness by FOFOA

Post by Indiana Jones » 30 Jan 2012, 10:08

In the 17th century, the Dutch Golden Age, many Dutch people invested in Municipal- and State Bonds. Although the total debt was over 150% Dutch GDP and the interest was only 2.5% they were confident with their bonds and did not swap their investments to gold or real estate.

Compared to the current Greek debt, the Dutch state debt was in worse condition. However nobody was worried because they believed some day the debt would be paid.

This is only because there were no rating agencies who scared the hell out of investors.


Bottom line: It is all about trust en confidence.
Everything that needs to be said has already been said.
But since no one was listening, everything must be said again.

Post Reply