| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Ardent Listener
Administrator
USA
4841 Posts |
 Posted - 08/13/2010 : 12:08:51
|
You must be logged in to see this link.
|
Realcent.forumco.com disclosure. Please read.
All posts either by the members, moderators, and the administration of http://realcent.forumco.com are for your edification and amusement only. It is not the intent of realcent.forumco.com or its host to provide investment, medical, matrimonial, legal, security or tax advice and nothing posted here should be considered to be so. All rights reserved.
Think positive. |
|
|
Cerulean
Penny Hoarding Member
USA
993 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2010 : 13:03:31
|
Math time!
150,000 tons of precious metals / 6,862,000,000 humans on earth
= 0.000022 tons per person
= 0.049 pounds per person
= 0.78 ounces per person
= 24.3 grams per person
The world left the gold standard when the world population was only 2 billion. Now it is more than 3 times that, with projections of 10 billion by 2050. That spreads PMs very thin. This is why I don't see a return to a precious metals standard until the world population is much smaller. |
Sorting Map
2010 First Finds Contest
Are you a Buffalo Hunter?
Wanna take seignorage away from the Fed? Spend *any* coins!
We cannot afford this government.
Cerulean's Standing Offer: $3/lb shipped for foreign coins |
Edited by - Cerulean on 08/13/2010 13:04:44 |
 |
|
|
fb101
Administrator
USA
2856 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2010 : 13:41:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cerulean
This is why I don't see a return to a precious metals standard until the world population is much smaller.
Which quite a few governments are attempting to hasten. |
 |
|
|
|
Ardent Listener
Administrator
USA
4841 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2010 : 17:11:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cerulean
Math time!
150,000 tons of precious metals / 6,862,000,000 humans on earth
= 0.000022 tons per person
= 0.049 pounds per person
= 0.78 ounces per person
= 24.3 grams per person
The world left the gold standard when the world population was only 2 billion. Now it is more than 3 times that, with projections of 10 billion by 2050. That spreads PMs very thin. This is why I don't see a return to a precious metals standard until the world population is much smaller.
That where copper and nickel will come into play....... "Can I shine your shoes for a copper Governooorrr?' |
Realcent.forumco.com disclosure. Please read.
All posts either by the members, moderators, and the administration of http://realcent.forumco.com are for your edification and amusement only. It is not the intent of realcent.forumco.com or its host to provide investment, medical, matrimonial, legal, security or tax advice and nothing posted here should be considered to be so. All rights reserved.
Think positive. |
|
|
|
argent_pur
Penny Sorter Member
78 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2010 : 18:12:24
|
Physical amounts of the precious metals is really not that relevant to the return of a PM standard. The currency value of gold and silver can be infinitely adjusted up or down to make room for changes in population or changes in PM supplies. Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate the value of gold and silver (as money), though it has shirked that responsibility and given it to Benny Boy. I support a full-reserve, fully-convertible gold standard (or bi-metallic standard). Though it would not be a perfect system, it would be better than what we have currently.
This brings an interesting question to mind: why does the government insist on borrowing the use of its own money at interest from a private bank when it could print all the interest-free money it needs itself? "To prevent political control of the supply of money" you say?...don't kid yourself, the money supply is already at least partially controlled by short-term politics as it is. |
Edited by - argent_pur on 08/13/2010 18:38:57 |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
The Great Credit Contraction
Forum Locked
