I really would like to know where you are coming up with your ideas/opinions.
You have to ask yourself why the Euro would be more "trusted" than the U.S. dollar. Some Euro countries may not be running a deficit that is as high as the U.S. (as a % of GDP), but their growth is less than 2% or non-existant in many cases, which would not allow them to pay down debt of any significance. Inflation numbers in the U.S. are slightly higher than in the EU.
Oil prices are going to have a similar effect on the EU, and it has been shown time and time again by a number of measurements that a U.S. worker is much more productive than an EU worker (this keeps a lid on U.S. inflation). Why get so excited about the euro, other than the fact that it has had a phenomenal run against the U.S. dollar?
Gold is not money, it is a store of wealth. Money is a unit of exchange. I cannot exchange gold for food or gas. I must sell gold for euros or dollars or yen, which can then be exchanged for the goods that I want to purchase.
Your example of the $200,000 mortgage is incredible to me. I shake my head as to how this information is accepted as the truth.
1) A bank/lender will give me a loan for $200,000, but it is shown as a loan receivable on their books and the bank has to wire cash to the seller/escrow company. The bank generally does this because the cost of their funds is less than the interest rate on the loan. Banks and savings & loans went bankrupt in the '80s when they held too many fixed-rate loans and their cost of funds skyrocketed when inflation and rates shot above the rates they were receiving on their loans.
It is true that banks can lend on a portion of their outstanding assets which include mortgages, but the FED realizes this. This is no secret, and it is incorporated into the calculations of money supply by the FED.
2) You will have to give further explanation as to how a homebuyer "feels rich" when they take on a $200,000 mortgage and the requisite mortgage payments, property taxes and insurance? And somehow this "feeling of being rich" injects another $200,000 of money into the U.S. economy. There is no responsible person I know that takes on these payments and then goes out and spends another $200,000 that they do not have. Perhaps this concept is too abstract for me.
3) The seller does of course receive the $200,000 from the bank/lender and turns around and pays down on the loan or line of credit they have with their lender(s). I don't know of any large real estate developers that do not have a number of loans and lenders.
So, one lender sends out $200,000 that the homebuyer never sees, and the $200,000 arrives at the seller, where it is promptly used to pay down the seller's debt with a different lender.
How is $600,000 magically created in "the system"?
Money does not equal debt or potential debt. Credit, or easy credit, has the potential to increase money supply, but are you seeing easy credit right now in the U.S. credit markets?
Plus, money supply may be increasing over the last few years in the U.S. (frankly I do not know), but I am certain the cost of money (interest rates) has been rising at an even faster rate for the past 4 years, until just recently.
The money out there is now much more expensive than it was 3-4 years ago.
This creates an equalizing effect on the credit markets.
The Fed is not stupid. They take their job and function very seriously. They do an excellent job on matters that they can control.
It is the shocks to the system that are difficult to gauge.
Things such as oil embargos, govt. price controls, the Tech Stock crash, 9/11 and sub-prime lenders (FED should be partially responsible for this) who lend to people that otherwise could not qualify for a "conforming" loan.
I have still not received an answer to my question, "Is United Airlines running a Ponzi scheme, if they cannot pay off their debt in 1 year...or 5 years... or 10 years?" Maybe because you already know the answer.
The U.S. government is no different than United Airlines (except their bonds are a much safer bet). Why haven't you brought up the huge deficit built up under Reagan that was eliminated by a strong U.S. economy about 10 years later?
The answer is that there is no Ponzi scheme. This was proven wrong in the late '90's and it is silly to think of it being so now.
Are you kidding me? Have you ever had an economics class in your life?
Of course I knew gold was fixed at $35.
What does that mean?
It means that the price of gold was fixed at $35 by the government and was not allowed to trade at the market price.
Therefore, while gold's price was fixed, we have no idea what it's true value was, because it was not allowed to trade in a free market.
This is how black markets get created, because the price that is fixed is artificial. Do you think if the government fixed the price of an ounce of gold today at $500, that the value of that ounce would magically drop to $500 tomorrow?
The government tried to impose price controls in the early '70's because of increasing inflation. This was a disaster because the government cannot tell me what a package of bacon is worth. The market determines the value.
You are seeing the same thing today with the Chinese yuan. The Chinese govt. has fixed the yuan value and will not let it trade freely. Everyone knows that if the yuan was allowed to trade freely in the open market its value vs. the U.S. dollar would be much higher. The Chinese govt. likes it right where it is. Perhaps due to the benefits of cheaper export prices to the United States.
$35 was an artificial value placed on gold by the government.
The real market value at that time is anyone's guess, although I am sure someone has tried to analyze this. Gold had a fixed value for a long time before it was allowed to trade freely on the open market.
To say an ounce of gold was worth $35 in the early '70's is ludicrous.
Why do people open their mouths when they don't know what they are talking about?