How is gold then valued?

[Boefke]

Dear members of this forum,

I think I got my head around the concept of freegold. Yet, what remains open is:

If Gold gets demonetized, how is the stored wealth then valued?

Until now we could fiat wealth in numeric quantitative terms a.k.a. "I have 1,000 US$". In what way would gold then be denominated?

Greetings.

Gold is measured by weight.

Gold is not denominated in currency, rather currency is denominated in gold.

You can still quote wealth (stored value), but you quote it in weight in gold rather than currency units, eg "I have 5oz gold".

good to see you here blondie,
have learned a lot of your thoughts in the past, and always enjoy reading them.

that said, I do not agree with you here (anymore) ...

weight does not give any information about te value of the gold.
the value of gold is, like with currency, just a matter of perception.
value is not a constant, there can never be a tangible univeral proxy for value.
to use gold for that will do injustice to the cyclic nature of markets ...

gold should be just a hedge against mismanagement of government. nothing more.

Just a hedge against mismanagement of government? Nothing more? Hard to grasp this Paul?

So the Saudi's are/were accepting Gold besides $'s just because it's a hedge against government?

I must say i appreciate the clarity you try to give about this subject, and the discussion about the 1 unit of account worldwide, but to state it simple........I Just don't get it? And how is it possible for something to work out, when nobody is understanding it?

Let's pretend we are not the rest of the world, but a very,very small group of people interested in the monetaire system and problems it brings with it. After months of talking, explaining and talking again........you have convinced probably 1 person of your thoughts. How is the rest of the world this going to understand??? The more i reed the more i get confused.

This is opposite of the understandings of Freegold. The more we learn, the clearer it gets, a must in my opinion.

[Paul]

I disagree with you boefke

This is not just my silly idea nobody understands, that would be merely your projection(smile),
this is also Martin Armstrongs position, which I agree with, I try to clarify.

My line of thought about the ideal monetary system combines his thought with that of Bernard Lietaer.
We did not touch that here ...

[Blondie]

weight does not give any information on te value of the gold.

I don't believe I said that it did, Paul.
Weight is the objective scale of measurement of physical gold.
Value is everywhere and always a subjective assessment, I completely agree.
If the market has freely established a rate of exchange between gold and currency, presuming said currency is still acceptable in exchange for other goods and services (ie. is an acceptable medium of exchange), then simple triangulation gives the value of any of the three. Such value remains subjective in that it is an expression of the utility found in the valued item (gold, currency or tangible good/service) by the assessor, but all participants in such a system now have an objective reference point: the weight of gold does not change.

I am interested in your views; I have not seen an explanation of them which I understood, as yet, so I am keen to be pointed toward such a synopsis. Perhaps you can clarify here?
Perhaps another member who shares your perspective can help?

I am the last person who would call for another to abdicate their responsibility to think for themselves.

[Paul]

weight does not give any information on te value of the gold.

I don't believe I said that it did, Paul.
Weight is the objective scale of measurement of physical gold.
Value is everywhere and always a subjective assessment, I completely agree.

It is what the topic question is about ....

I am glad we can agree weight can not tell us anything about the value of the gold itself.
Weight is also the objective measurement of physical sugar.
Value is relative, gold can not be valued against gold. we need different approach.

I will gladly clarify my view tommmmorrow when I will have had less beer(smile)
(waiting for world championship baseball final to start, Holland in the final. bigger smile)
#winning

edit: 2-1 ! victory ! sweeeeeet ...

[Boefke]

I disagree with you boefke

This is not just my silly idea nobody understands, that would be merely your projection(smile),
this is also Martin Armstrongs position, which I agree with, I try to clarify.

My line of thought about the ideal monetary system combines his thought with that of Bernard Lietaer.
We did not touch that here ...

I haven't read something about mr Lietaer's work, And i've been searching the forum for minutes now to find an interview, posted here by Rasta i think. Can't find it anymore, although this forum has only started for just 2 weeks now .

So would someone reading this take the effort to post it again on this topic for me (and perhaps others). I would like to read it.

And Paul, i was not saying it was just your silly idea, contrary, when it was a silly idea it would have been clear to me weeks ago.......at least i hope . It is very hard to grasp, that's something different don't you think. Hope i will understand (step 1 is understand and after that we can agree/disagree) it than better.

[Paul]

http://www.lietaer.com/
there is nice presentation on the front page to start with ...

Did you mean this interview ?
http://uazu.net/money/lietaer.html

money IS hard to grasp, literally, it is the paradoxal nature of the beast, it is intangible commodity ...

[Rasta]

I haven't read something about mr Lietaer's work, And i've been searching the forum for minutes now to find an interview, posted here by Rasta i think. Can't find it anymore, although this forum has only started for just 2 weeks now .

So would someone reading this take the effort to post it again on this topic for me (and perhaps others). I would like to read it.

Bernard A. Lietaer - Monetary blind spots and structural solutions. Bernard Lietaer worked for the Belgian central bank, and for the BIS before they kicked him out of the "insider circle". The graph he is referring to, is also used in this paper. Followup video here: YouTube - TEDxBerlin - Bernard Lietaer - 11/30/09

[d2thdr]

I disagree with you boefke

This is not just my silly idea nobody understands, that would be merely your projection(smile),
this is also Martin Armstrongs position, which I agree with, I try to clarify.

My line of thought about the ideal monetary system combines his thought with that of Bernard Lietaer.
We did not touch that here ...

Really?

Are you sure of Martin Armstrong's position? He seems to keep changing his stance. And now his stance is aligned with FOFOA's.

Read this;

Then there is the Gold Standard nonsense to further distract people from the truth. There is NOTHING
that the Gold Standard can offer. That is just gibberish. The problem is so far greater than what is
MONEY. This is the Sovereign Debt Crisis that is exploding because we do not have the means to pay
everything that was promised. Making gold MONEY will accomplish absolutely zilch! Those who preach
MONEY is a “fiat” and we have to return to gold to cure the evils of the world have not thought this
through! Just how do you pay the outstanding debt in gold? The banking system, credit cards,
mortgages, everything related to debt would collapse if there is no fiat
system. If you deposited a $20 gold piece in a bank, they lend it to
another and now we both have $20 in our accounts, but there is still
ONE $20 gold coin. The entire financial system is constructed on a fiat
system. Forget it! The Gold Standard on a real one-to-one basis with no
fiat will destroy society, and solve not a single problem.

http://armstrongeconomics.files.wordpre ... 101511.pdf

[Paul]

Armstrong and FOFOA have different position here.

and yes
I am sure

FOFOA states EUR will be the next world trade currency
I(cfr. Armstrong) do nog agree. can't be. EUR is not independent(and, small detail, will be the first to go) ...

Armstrong isn't switching positions but to understand what he is telling you, you have got to open up your mind.

[Indiana Jones]

It's nice to produce theoretical models but do they comply with the political structures that are in charge of the world right now ?
I guess Armstrong understands this compliance as he explains his practical solutions.

Nearly 100 years the $IMFS has been a statical system in a ever evolving economical and financial world. That ceated an anormous inflow of entropy in the $IMFS system that has reached it's limits time and again. The chaos within the system has reached it's upper limits right now and simply has to evolve into something new. (ilya prigogine : chaos&reorganisation)

How this evolution will take place is up to the political parties that are in charge. Maybe evolution is not the proper word anymore and it should be revolution.
When the pressure gets to high many start yelling about possible solutions presenting them as probable solutions sometimes ignoring the current political structures.
Armstrong doesn't because he takes this structures seriously into account while philosophizing about solutions.

I'm sure Armstrong's cycles are correct but he also isn’t a psychic medium. In my opinion the best way to approach today’s monetary problems is to approach them in a practical way like Armstrong does.

grtz. Indy