Look I can summarize this real simply. Gold standards force governments to run balanced budgets and to be accountable for their spending... That's why they hate them

@markpalmer8083

9 ай бұрын

No. They can still issue debt and borrow. But they have to borrow more gold. And no one can print that out of thin air and dilute the value of the money that everyone else works for and owns. That's why, since the Gold Standard was abandoned, the World is increasingly fk-ed. We are all now using a money that steals from you because those that control it can make as much of it as they want, whenever they want, whilst everyone else has to work for it.

Fascinating, glad I watched this

Finally a legit economist as guest.

@GarlicOasis

Жыл бұрын

Legit? lol

So how do I short copper again?

This man has knowledge - very clear.

@eddiebrown192

2 жыл бұрын

He’s a self interested con artist trying keep his Ponzi scheme going

@glenndouglas.T

2 жыл бұрын

@@eddiebrown192 jajajajajjaja maybe so - but at least he knows what he has written about.

@zacharybennett3249

2 жыл бұрын

He has opinions.

@gregg4417

10 ай бұрын

Copper does not rust.

There is a fantastic, indispensable educational film illustrating how the Gold standard works. It's called "I want the earth plus 5%". It's all about how the money system was conceived. Before fiat currency was invented people used bartering and trading of goods that were NEEDED (not "wanted" in a desired sense). But as there were limits to what needs could be met and what needs couldn't, people needed a more efficient way of trading value based on needs/wants, because of the sheer scale of difference between everyone's personal and individual needs to meet the expectations of life - hence the creation of paper money and a credit system in the form of "I owe yous".

@henrygustav7948

2 жыл бұрын

First we had credit/gift economies then monetary ones. Bartering and trading of goods in an economy on a widescale have never ever been found by Anthropologists and archaeologists. Money, as far as we know was created to settle blood-feuds and used to pay fines and fees, not as a way to buy sell goods and services.

@mazklassa9338

2 жыл бұрын

@@henrygustav7948 interesting to know. Did you watch the documentary I'm referring to?

@henrygustav7948

2 жыл бұрын

@@mazklassa9338 I've watched many videos about barter, I've also read David Graeber debt the first 5000 years and watched David Graeber and other economists lectures about the origins of money and they did not arise out of a system of barter which many believe. You can see this with the Celtics who had prices of everyday items found in a household with no markets around to speak of. The prices for these items were prices to be paid for breaking them. Also with Germanic tribes and the practice of weregild, money was used to settle blood-feuds, not to exchange goods and services. Its way more complicated than just 3 sheep for a cow.

@mazklassa9338

2 жыл бұрын

@@henrygustav7948 I believe you when you say how much research you've done and I have no doubt that it's more complicated than just bartering for practical/domestic needs. I will check out Graeber to educate myself on it, because tbh I don't have vast knowledge about it. Just that I saw that one in particular and it explained it in a way which made it easy to abstract how the introduction of coins as a means of exchange seemed to act as the ideal lubricant to service the diversity of needs where not everyone could mutually exchange their wants/needs. Did you actually see the documentary though?

@henrygustav7948

2 жыл бұрын

@@mazklassa9338 The introduction of coinage and money has always come about as a result of a States power. A central authority which paid its soldiers in gold who could then purchase things from Markets. Why did markets use the States money token/pieces of gold? It was because of the States power to levy taxes on people which make people need those pieces of gold. Otherwise people would just farm and work eating off of the land. Money didn't arise out of barter, money arose as a means to settle blood-feuds/debts. It became a means of exchange when States conquered people, then enforcing a tax obligation on those people in the money token of their choosing. That tax obligation made people need the states money or risk having their house burnt down. I saw a part of that documentary, I disagree straight from the beginning premises. Check out Graeber and origins of money.

he right about everything except one.. copper doesn’t rust lol! that why your water pipes are made out of them!

@zacharybennett3249

2 жыл бұрын

Only iron rusts, but copper does oxidize which is the same process that causes rust.

@jackfiercetree5205

2 жыл бұрын

Copper definitely oxidizes. Much like why certain base metals don't just explode in atmosphere... the oxide layer is thick and robust enough to block further oxidation.

@zacharybennett3249

2 жыл бұрын

Water pipes are made of copper because copper is a cheap, ductile, non-poisonous metal with mild antimicrobial properties. However, iron pipes have been used in the past, but were found to be inefficient in comparison to copper once the availability matched. NYC, USA still has lead pipes for much of the same reasons as I stated earlier for copper, minus the poisonous part.

@philfortner1805

2 жыл бұрын

Rust and oxidation are the same thing. Even aluminum oxidizes, but it forms a protective hard layer that prevents any further rust/oxidation.

@jackfiercetree5205

2 жыл бұрын

@@philfortner1805 pretty sure "rust" iS specific to the oxidation of ferrous materials. All metals oxidize... only iron rusts. Kind of along the lines that all seals are seal lions, and not all sea lions are seals.

When did Michel Knowles learn all this

Price discovery?

Of course, he's completely right and one of the smartest men around.

You should have Peter Schiff on your podcast

Copper has an extremely finite supply. Because of its importance in industrial use, may actually be more valuable than gold. But the real illogicality is he doesn't realize any standard currency can be subdivided infinitely, just like bitcoin. It does not imply value in any meaningful way.

@markpalmer8083

9 ай бұрын

There's no finite supply to any of the elements. The only limiting factor is the time and effort people devote to finding and extracting it. And if the value rises, so will the amount of time and effort devoted to producing more.

So is "Hard money" anything that's physically hard to make as money due to it's limited nature? Not a lot of gold around/ silver. If silver was as abundant as grass it would be considered soft in it's nature if it was considered a currency at some point in time?

Better trade in your currency for money real fast...

You must explain to us why this guy says that bitcoin is so safe and right now the price went down like crazy. Comments ?

Copper does not rust.. it is a precious metal.

And, what was before gold as a standard? Most likely, animals and agriculture products.

@Taxicology

2 жыл бұрын

Yep, but they were very hard to use as a medium of exchange (one of the main characteristics of money) since they were so big and hard to move sometimes, so people switched to other things like seashells, and eventually, precious metals (gold, silver, copper)

@cryptic8043

2 жыл бұрын

@@Taxicology And, life began to be very fast paced that transporting gold, or going to physically collect your gold becomes a hard medium to use. Hence, the digital transition of value. Going back to gold is like asking to go back to physical male delivery only because it makes us more connected interiorly with whom we write to.

@Taxicology

2 жыл бұрын

@@cryptic8043 Yeah that's a good analogy aha. Probably why the guest here thinks going back to a gold standard won't realistically ever happen.

@teatowel11

2 жыл бұрын

Sticks, no joke

Copper doesn't rust

@KD0CAC

2 жыл бұрын

What is rust - oxidizing of the metal - copper does oxidize , to a point and over time copper will be environmentally broken down " rusted " - lose a portion of volume / weight . Gold will not lose any volume / weight by above ground environmental conditions ? I add the question mark to be open to more info , perspectives ! I also was setback for a moment when the trem " rust " was used .

@brennangum6236

2 жыл бұрын

@@KD0CAC Why is gold valuable again? It has very little utility. There are better options for whatever utility it does have. Gold has value for the same reason money has value. Because we find it valuable. It has no intrinsic value beyond its a shiny metal we seem to like.

In a scene from The Restaurant at the End of the Universe some survivors have crash landed on a habitable planet and the leaf is established as currency. In order to curb inflation a number of forests are destroyed. Economic theory in a nutshell.

Hi there Mr. Guy, Money is a legally binding contract for debt owed and credit earned, which is finalized at the point of transfer. The value of a good, service or future is determined by the participating parties in the exchange. (Participation includes everyone that worked on the process to allow the finalized outcome) Humans decided the value of goods services and futures, and therefore create "value" in that assignment. The "value of money" is just the standardized unit of measurement for these exchanges. So yes, Money is a human construct. Signed- a realist

@shawnjohansen2022

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks for stating this. I checked the comments immediately after watching to see if anyone was going to point out the obvious. I did however enjoy the slight of hand when he tried speaking about currency as if it were money.

@henrygustav7948

2 жыл бұрын

Money is a debt which anyone can create. Disneyworld creates Disneybucks, Chucky Cheese creates tokens that can be used to exchange for good/services that they have. You could make me a pair of shoes and I could write you a Henrybucks IOU which you could use to exchange for other good/services from other people. You would accept my Henry bucks so long as you trust that I would honor my original agreement to give back something in kind for my money token. US dollars get their value set by the US Federal government by the prices they pay. If they pay a soldier 50k a year then they are defining what 50k can buy you. The market then gets its pricing information from the Government.

@shawnjohansen2022

2 жыл бұрын

@@henrygustav7948 Your comment is key to understanding fiat. People who promote a gold standard or a bitcoin standard either don't understand what gives fiat its value, or simply aren't honest about it. I watched the entirety of the podcast and that topic was never covered. Monetizing debt comes with it's own risks, but this is why interest exists. Memes aside, it is not simply turning on a money printer. Fiat currency is backed by the economic, political, and military power of the country issuing it, and their ability to meet the obligations of the debt created in order to issue it. The risk of default is priced into the interest rate of a particular fiat currency. I would ask someone who wants a bitcoin standard, how they expect an economy to run when there is a fixed 21 million bitcoins in existence, and debt is such an important piece of the economic puzzle. No one is going to take on the risk of lending money, without setting an interest rate on that loan. How will you pay back 21 million + 5% of borrowed bitcoin, if you can't monetize debt? It's simple, you can't. This is why fractional reserve banking was started, and why using a commodity as a currency leads to a run on the bank.

@dmitrysamoilov5989

2 жыл бұрын

Yay smart ppl

@henrygustav7948

2 жыл бұрын

@@shawnjohansen2022 "The risk of default is priced into the interest rate of a particular fiat currency. " The natural rate of interest is zero, there is no default risk with a fiat currency. Many Fed reserve chairs have stated this already. Governments that issue their own currency with a free floating exchange rate and no debts in other foreign denominated currencies can not default in something that only they can create. The so called debt that the US government owe, which are Treasury bonds are not an actual debt in the traditional sense that we normally think of at all. They are savings accounts at the Federal reserve and to pay off the amount of treasury securities, the Fed just debits a savings account and credits a checking account. The actual debt which IS an issue is medical debt, student loan debt, mortgage debt, credit card debt. The National debt? Zero issue.

Gold gonna rip boys.

which country holds the biggest gold reserves in tthe world?clue its in south east asia XD

Lex, at this point it’s criminal you haven’t had on Warren Mosler, Bill Mitchell, Randall Wray, or someone similar. Not once on this channel have I been exposed to a heterodox view on the origin/function of money. It’s borderline ridiculous given the academic strength of that community.

eventually we will be able to use minesweeper for alchemy to create bitcoins and that's awesome

Fractional reserves isn't "shady"... It's fairly common. Our gold standard was fractional. Theres also plenty of ways to manipulate it. Other central banks started bascially robbing our gold reserves by turning in dollars for gold.

Silver could be used for lower denominations

his point on copper makes no sense...

@rimacidih9350

2 жыл бұрын

Yea you can literally make that point about everything.

@DD-te6oj

2 жыл бұрын

It was a ramble to “sound smart”…. Mission failed.

Here from Tate vid

You can tell lex isn’t listening. Happens throughout the full interview.

5000yrs of mining gold is saved silver used up industrial uses world debt 280trillion reality 888trillion

@suggadeg

2 жыл бұрын

Gold/ silver ration is like 1/80 right now

@silverbushman

2 жыл бұрын

@@suggadeg out of the ground its 1to8 ratio

@suggadeg

2 жыл бұрын

@@silverbushman god knows you’re right. And, it’s getting more difficult to mine silver. It isn’t sustainable.

There is only one real standard and that is labor.

Copper Don’t Rust Genius…

@spartanrh83

2 жыл бұрын

Why does it turn Green? That's oxidation right?

If you can't smell it, touch it, taste it & use it then you don't own it

@MinecraftMasterNo1

2 жыл бұрын

That's idiotic. You can't taste securities. That doesn't mean you don't own it.

@InfoSponge101

2 жыл бұрын

@@MinecraftMasterNo1 If you have a gun someone else will taste the lead

@Dedicated_.1

2 жыл бұрын

@@MinecraftMasterNo1 Many of those securities are backed by less of the asset than they trade with people. I.e. if they failed to deliver, people would not get there asset their owed. Massive counterparty risk.

You trade the word “copper” for “crypto currency” and it all makes sense 😂🙏

@Taxicology

2 жыл бұрын

Yes, except for BTC, since it only has a limited supply with no possibility of ever flooding the market with more of it. That's what he's trying to get at.

@verapamil07

2 жыл бұрын

Except, you are 100% wrong and BTC is the exact opposite example.

The gold standard is incoherent. People seem to forget that if you do it that way then economic growth is limited by how much gold you can dig out the ground. Fiat money has its own problems, but you need to be able to increase supply of money as economic activity increases and not out of proportion to that

@007SuperSoldier

2 жыл бұрын

Goldbugs: “gold is so rare and useful, that the government should confiscate most of it in order to keep it in a vault in the ground so that we can’t use it for its useful conductive purposes”

@craigdevries7124

2 жыл бұрын

It's incoherent if the goal is to continue the inflationary economy the west employs. A sound currency would gain value not lose it like fiat. The economy would be deflationary more-or-less

@seandavies5130

2 жыл бұрын

@@craigdevries7124 actually my implication was to be neither inflationary or deflationary. Probably quite hard to achieve in practice though. I don't see how long term deflation helps anyone. Just think about it, if money is interchangeable with goods and services, then having a fixed upper limit to the amount of currency means you impose an artificial limit on how much you can increase the amount goods and services getting passed around. For example, at a certain point you would need to say "no no no, we can't reproduce anymore, there isn't enough gold"

@thecrypt5823

2 жыл бұрын

The fact that you find it incomprehensible does not make it incoherent. It just means that you have more to learn. To begin, do not conflate monetary expansion with economic growth. Money printing neither enables nor produces economic growth; it simply changes the unit of account, which is nothing more than the denominator. As you know, increasing the denominator does not increase the numerator. The true measure of economic growth is in the amount of goods and services produced in an economy through productive work. Productive work is the numerator. Economic growth occurs independently of the unit of account, the denominator. Printing money does not increase productive work, unless we can trick workers into believing that the funny money they are working for today, diluted by inflation, has the same value as the money they worked for yesterday before we printed more. In reality, we are just lying to them and stealing from them by means of the Cantillion effect. Printing funny money is one of the easiest ways for governments to “fund” wars without overtly raising taxes. But inflation is a regressive tax, as it targets the poorest people least able to escape its effects. The rich can escape it by selling their excess funny money for hard assets like land, art, gold, and equities that generally retain their value. But the poor, scraping what little together they have in a savings account, will barely perceive their savings and their earnings being diluted, gradually like a boiling frog. Even a small, 2% inflation rate dilutes the hard-earned savings of the poor by 50% in a generation. If workers don’t have the wherewithal to demand a raise, then they will grow poorer with time and wonder why they can’t afford the things that their parents did, like owning a home and raising a family on a single income. Meanwhile, the wealthy have socked their dollars away into investment properties, further driving up the price of housing to an absurd degree because even the wealthy want to escape inflation too, and owning land is one of the better ways to escape it. The distortions that this inflationary Fiat system creates have devastating effects on the poor, not only because their savings are being diluted, but also because everyone else of higher means is buying up things to prevent their own savings from being diluted. For the poor, it’s practically an economic death spiral, usually in slow motion if the Fed is doing its job. But a death spiral nonetheless. If people believe that printing more money increases economic growth, then they should buy more Terra Luna tokens, trillions of which were minted last week during its own rapid death spiral that took its purchasing power from around $100 to around $0.00001. My point is that the value in a given system is not measured by the number of a monetary units in that system. In a gold standard, monetary expansion is impeded by the difficulty of mining. The effect that this has is to stabilize prices of goods and services. If economic activity increases such that the goods and services increase faster than the expansion of the money supply, then the money that you earn (or have saved) increases in value and can ultimately buy more of those goods and services as they are re-priced in relation to the money supply. This is beneficial form of deflation, much like we experience with technological advances whereby an iPhone this year might be better than a prior model while costing the same or sometimes less. But instead of this happening only with technological advances and efficiencies, this also happens with all other goods and services as the wealth effect accrues to those who earn and save gold-backed dollars that are slowly appreciating in value. In this dynamic, the poor do not need to demand a raise, and the wealthy do not need to sock away their dollars into real estate to protect themselves from undue inflation, because the dollars themselves appreciate. And the price of a home in relation to a working person's income becomes much more manageable for them to handle. The people who often lose out in a gold standard are excessive spenders, excessive borrowers, and those who presently benefit from the Cantillion effect nearest the money printers. In other words, a gold standard is a win-win for honest, hard-working people, and a lose-lose for corrupt, irresponsible warmongers. Unfortunately, for the time being, the people with the most to lose are presently ruling us.

@craigdevries7124

2 жыл бұрын

@@thecrypt5823 wow that is well written my friend

This guy thinks Marxists don't have a good understanding of economics? It seems like Marxism is all about economics and we keep seeing examples of him being proven right

@bennyl7224

2 жыл бұрын

You are incorrect

@joshgribbon8510

2 жыл бұрын

​@@bennyl7224 in what way? Edit: wanted to add more context - I'm dubious of the labor theory of value, but dialectical materialism seems like a good lens for history. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism I haven't read a bunch of theory or anything, but it just generally makes more sense to me as an economic theory than capitalism, which seems to rely on taking advantage of someone else at some point to get profit that isn't a result of your actual labor - but more as a result of something like rent-seeking, which we generally see as a bad indicator even in captalism en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking

@bennyl7224

2 жыл бұрын

@@joshgribbon8510 I used to think in a similar way. It looks the way you’ve described from a birds eye view. Actually though, capitalism is simply the government protecting your right to own property. Property is bicycles, chickens, a house, the eggs the chickens lay that you sell at the market, the money you make from the eggs. The accounting term for property is capital. In capitalism, the exchange of money for goods or services only happens voluntarily. That is, I don’t have capacity to build my own iPhone. But when I buy one, it brings me more value than the price I paid for it. If it doesn’t, I don’t buy it. Billionaires in capitalism have to create value. They aren’t stealing money off poor people, they are providing a good or a service that improves the life of someone more than the cost. In Marxism, the only way to become a billionaire is by stealing from your fellow citizen.

@joshgribbon8510

2 жыл бұрын

@@bennyl7224 I support the government protecting the right to personal property, but not private property (as defined by Marxism) - basically you still get your car/phone/etc but you can't do the typical rent-seeking stuff we see. All the things you listed would be personal property and not private property so Marxism wouldn't affect that. I'd also push back on your point that capitalism is voluntary - you almost by definition don't have a choice other than to work for someone else when you have no resources of your own, which is often a consequence of birth so has nothing to do with personal merit. We could still have iphones with Marxism of socialism - almost all the tech in the iphone comes from socialist programs and not capitalism. I'd agree billionaires create some value under capitalism - but nowhere near a billion dollars - and most of the "value" is actually created by the workers - not the employer, so it's kinda weird to say they're entitled to the profits en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_property I basically agree with that definition, which I'd characterize as "you can't own land". The only way I've seen people historically get land rights are through methods we'd currently consider illegal. I agree with the legal ruling that you can't take land by force, but I think we should stand by that and then say pretty much all land has been taken by force an no one has a right to it - I think whoever lives in a community should decide together how the land should be used. Edit: I'll even clarify that I think if you contribute your personal property to something that would be considered private property that you're entitled to those gains. For example if you buy some land with a house and build a well, increasing the value of the land, then you should be entitled to that increase. The place I diverge is that I don't think you should be able to increase the value and then refuse to sell and rent it our for a higher profit margin. This is a big problem in the US without even getting into the larger finance companies buying up land. My general solution is a graduated tax that increases by the amount of properties held - something like 100% property tax on the first property, 110% on the second, 120% on the third, etc. We'd need some laws to guard against shell companies but this would make it totally not profitable to run a large rental property and they'd be forced to sell to actual individual people.

@bennyl7224

2 жыл бұрын

@@joshgribbon8510 wow. You’re quite a bit further along that direction that I ever was. There are consequences to the utopia you describe. I wish you well on your journey of discovery of them. Edit: to start you off, are you assuming that when the goal posts of life are moved that the players play the same game tactics? As in, iPhones made by Marxist committee will be equal to iPhones created by private industry, that prices that find their way on their own through free markets will be equal under central planning lever pulling of restrictions that you describe, free of ripple effects to the lever pulling? Would iPhones even exist? A property owner provides a good or service at a market rate to a renter. The renter pays for that accommodation, they aren’t being exploited. Land lords can’t charge more than market rent, or their property stays empty.