Dutch Central Bank Admits Preparing for a New Gold Standard .....

[Heavy-Black-Sand]

Is the world quietly preparing to go back onto a global Gold standard of some type? ..... while basically unimaginable even just a few years ago, with the recent plunge in the value of US Treasury bonds, a return to some type of global Gold standard may not be so far fetched ......

https://gata.org/node/22910

 

[Ultrax]

There is not enough gold and silver in the world to ensure trade turnover parity. Unfortunately. As long as capitalism exists, a credit economy, interest rates, fiat money and constant inflation are inevitable.

 

[goldshark]

I disagree. The difference would be that Au would be valued at an incredibly higher value than current prices. Any suggestions on a better commodity? Values are based on an exchange of energies. What contains an exchange of values, per unit price, better than Gold? Gold, due to its rarity, ultimate value, beauty, nobility, and acceptance, has seen its enduring value, through out the history of man kind. You don't f--k with tradition, it has a proven history. Otherwise, you wouldn't be here at this site. You know this is true, even though, ultimately, you can't eat the stuff in hard times. It is a medium of hard won energy, which will continue to be a medium of exchange, when fiat, digital, or any other conceived means have gone the wayside.

 

[Heavy-Black-Sand]

will continue to be a medium of exchange, when fiat, digital, or any other conceived means have gone the wayside.

I think it can be argued that Gold has stood the test of time as one of the most reliable (if not the most reliable) measure/gauge of "honest weights & measures".

 

[Ultrax]

Previously, this was possible, before the era of industrial revolutions, but over 100 years, international trade turnover has grown tens of thousands of times.

The cost of gold as a financial standard does not solve the problem of the stability of the financial system. Imagine a situation where financiers introduced a new gold standard, and Elon Musk brought a golden asteroid into Earth's orbit. What will happen then to gold prices and the stability of the global financial system? I think there will be a third world war.

You can take the situation simpler, for example, if a new super-large gold deposit was discovered in Africa, prices would collapse and the world economy would again be shaken by constant crises.

Therefore, it is the unstable amount of gold available to humankind, and therefore the volatility of its prices, that is a significant factor in the impossibility of a new gold standard.

Not a single material asset fully corresponds to all the necessary functions of modern money. The only advantage of gold is its compactness. Otherwise, we might have an oil, coal, or gas standard of money in the world.

 

[Heavy-Black-Sand]

Imagine a situation where financiers introduced a new gold standard, and Elon Musk brought a golden asteroid into Earth's orbit.

I haven't seen any definitive proof multi trillion dollar chunks are floating around in space that might (at some time in the future) be brought back into orbit even exist ..... space mining appears to be largely based on "theory" ..... Gold has a market cap of around $10 trillion ..... you'd need upwards of $30 trillion chunk to disrupt the market .... to the best of my knowledge; NOBODY HAS SUNK DRILL CORE INTO SPACE AND FOUND HIGH GRADE GOLD YET ..... WITH NO DRILL CORE, IT'S ALL JUST THEORY.

You can take the situation simpler, for example, if a new super-large gold deposit was discovered in Africa, prices would collapse and the world economy would again be shaken by constant crises.

The handful of top Senior mining co's essentially already know where nearly all the major/elephant Gold deposits already are .... the number of major/elephant gold deposits have become so rare, that several of earths last largest major known unexploited deposits are locked up in environmentally sensitive area's that are currently unpermitable.

 

[Heavy-Black-Sand]

I think it can be argued that Gold has stood the test of time as one of the most reliable (if not the most reliable) measure/gauge of "honest weights & measures".

The reason i predict Bitcoin will eventually fail as the defacto crypto store of value ......

* (A) ..... computing power roughly doubles every 2 years (Moore's Law) ......

* (B) ..... based upon Moore's Law alone, Bitcoin will eventually become obsolete to far better technology ..... i'd bet a small amount of money that Bitcoin will lose it's crypto defacto standard status within the next 20 years.

 

[Yggdrasil]

Let's get back to what we do in here please, and that do not include prophecies and banking.

 

[andu]

Gold and Bitcoin ****** fiat!

For all haters, bitcoin can and will evolve, it adapts it is constantly improved.
********. ********** and xrp.

Edit: how did eth go PoS after starting PoW? PoS energy consumption is negligible and can even be run on a raspberry pi. Code is malleable.

 

[Yggdrasil]

Gold and Bitcoin ***** fiat!

For all haters, bitcoin can and will evolve, it adapts it is constantly improved.
***** ********* and xrp.

Bitcoin as BTC can not evolve and it is a wonder that it has become what it is.
When that is said, it is an extremely power hungry crypto currency and as such probably will loose to its newer more evolved descendants.

Enough of this in the open forum, lets go back to refining please!

 

[Shark]

Certainly glad the grand daughters weren’t reading over my shoulder on that trashy rant from andu.

 

[4metals]

Gold and Bitcoin ****** fiat!

For all haters, bitcoin can and will evolve, it adapts it is constantly improved.
********. ********** and xrp.

This is a warning, one more post like that and you are gone.

 

[hoytSmith]

This is a warning, one more post like that and you are gone.

It pains me when threads are reduced to threats by moderators & staff. This is not to say that such warnings, at the time given, are not unwarranted, only that such warnings are often given after exchanges with several well-known members, moderators, etc. who have engaged in the substance of the discussion before calling an end to the conversation.

Moderate, or take a side—don’t try to do both. There’s precoius enough trust before someone claims to have a strong opinion, then starts picking at language, spelling, etc. That’s a part foul, at least.

And from the inside — it probably looks and feels like bullying by selective application of the rules — while simultaneously negating and ignoring the substance of the “offender’s” complaint, claim, etc. “You’re wrong —and don’t talk back” is not an answer anyone takes well.

I suggest that a moderator be assigned to or select every thread before participating or forming an opinion, and let that moderator moderate according to a short list of notions of how we all want to be treated, and apply those notions to all posts equally, and not participate in the discussion —at all.

I think it would save a lot of feelings, and I don’t get any joy out of seeing people getting frustrated and angry when they started out with poorly informed opinion and not enough resources to understand what they would need to know to make a better decision.

Some people don’t make sense. Some use talk-to-text and don’t know how to read at a functional level —-or spell well enough to indentify homonyms.

Anyway — I’m sure you guys will figure it out. Best of luck!

 

[Martijn]

I think the moderators give both good advice and they respect a grey area regarding subjects and rules. If a member crosses a hard line he will get corrected accordingly.
The “You’re wrong —and don’t talk back” comment is one I've never heard any of them make.
The 'stop this now or you will be banned' is a last warning. This does not end the discussion or the thread, but a subject brought up in it that's off limits.

They have a lot of patience and should no be censored in that way imo.

 

[FrugalRefiner]

It pains me when threads are reduced to threats by moderators & staff. This is not to say that such warnings, at the time given, are not unwarranted, only that such warnings are often given after exchanges with several well-known members, moderators, etc. who have engaged in the substance of the discussion before calling an end to the conversation.

Moderate, or take a side—don’t try to do both. There’s precoius enough trust before someone claims to have a strong opinion, then starts picking at language, spelling, etc. That’s a part foul, at least.

And from the inside — it probably looks and feels like bullying by selective application of the rules — while simultaneously negating and ignoring the substance of the “offender’s” complaint, claim, etc. “You’re wrong —and don’t talk back” is not an answer anyone takes well.

I suggest that a moderator be assigned to or select every thread before participating or forming an opinion, and let that moderator moderate according to a short list of notions of how we all want to be treated, and apply those notions to all posts equally, and not participate in the discussion —at all.

I think it would save a lot of feelings, and I don’t get any joy out of seeing people getting frustrated and angry when they started out with poorly informed opinion and not enough resources to understand what they would need to know to make a better decision.

Some people don’t make sense. Some use talk-to-text and don’t know how to read at a functional level —-or spell well enough to indentify homonyms.

Anyway — I’m sure you guys will figure it out. Best of luck!

With all due respect, 4metals' admonition was not about the subject matter of the post, but rather the thinly veiled profanity it contained. That was clearly a violation of the forum rules. It was not a matter of taking sides, or doing both, but correcting a violation of our rules. It was also not a selective application of the rules, or bullying. I have warned and/or banned members for similar behavior. We don't mind if members talk back, as long as they can express themselves without the use of profanity, or violating other forum rules.

It might "save a lot of feelings" if everyone familiarized themselves with the Forum Rules and abided by them.

Dave

 

[Alondro]

There is not enough gold and silver in the world to ensure trade turnover parity. Unfortunately. As long as capitalism exists, a credit economy, interest rates, fiat money and constant inflation are inevitable.

That's not true at all. Modern central banks came into existence based on the lie that they could prevent recessions and depressions. The FED was created by scumbag Woodrow Wilson (along with the IRS)... and we saw how well that worked in 1929! Centrals banks ended up making recessions demonstrably worse and longer-lasting, as there was nowhere else to turn to pull a nation out of the mess.

All that fiat money is GOVERNMENT-based (whether they admit it or not), and GOVERNMENT then decides which corporations and banks to bail out in times of economic crisis (often those which had the WORST business models and practices, as we saw in 2008/9), but have the MOST government connections) which isn't capitalistic at all. In fact, it's far closer to the textbook definition of fascism.

 

[Alondro]

I haven't seen any definitive proof multi trillion dollar chunks are floating around in space that might (at some time in the future) be brought back into orbit even exist ..... space mining appears to be largely based on "theory" ..... Gold has a market cap of around $10 trillion ..... you'd need upwards of $30 trillion chunk to disrupt the market .... to the best of my knowledge; NOBODY HAS SUNK DRILL CORE INTO SPACE AND FOUND HIGH GRADE GOLD YET ..... WITH NO DRILL CORE, IT'S ALL JUST THEORY.





The handful of top Senior mining co's essentially already know where nearly all the major/elephant Gold deposits already are .... the number of major/elephant gold deposits have become so rare, that several of earths last largest major known unexploited deposits are locked up in environmentally sensitive area's that are currently unpermitable.

Mining ANYTHING in space and returning large amounts of it to Earth is currently a pipe dream anyway. The sheer cost of setting up a mining operation on an asteroid is nearly incalculable, since you'd need to bring ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING into space required for the operation. We're talking hundreds of billions worth of rocket trips. That's quite an offset to the potential gains, not even addressing how you get large quantities of material down to Earth without it falling as a meteor! Pure gold might be worthwhile, given its value per ton, but even then you'd need a capsule with a landing chute large enough to decelerate the mass of gold. A ton of gold is worth $58 million at current prices... the reentry vehicle costs required to get it down at current reentry prices per kg would be.... $40 million. Sending all the materials into space costs $20 million per ton, currently. So, say you need 10 tons of materials to get the mining operation up and running on the asteroid... that's $200 million JUST TO START MINING. So, if you're only making $18 million per ton of gold produced, it'd take 11 tons of gold successfully landed on Earth JUST TO START TURNING A PROFIT, and that assumes NOTHING EVER GOES WRONG WITH ANYTHING in the entire process.

Basically, anything mined in space is going to STAY in space and be used for constructing space infrastructure. Other metals will be far more important than gold for that venture.

 

[Heavy-Black-Sand]

Let's get back to what we do in here please, and that do not include prophecies and banking.

I thought i had posted this topic in a correct "No Refining" discussion section of the website ..... but i guess not ..... should it be moved? .....

i would have thought that items that may significantly affect Gold's long term price would be worthy of discussion somehwere on this website considering how spot price has a significant potential bearing on profit/loss, particalrly in cases where you have people who combine/conduct both mining & refining activities.

 

[Heavy-Black-Sand]

Mining ANYTHING in space and returning large amounts of it to Earth is currently a pipe dream anyway. The sheer cost of setting up a mining operation on an asteroid is nearly incalculable, since you'd need to bring ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING into space required for the operation. We're talking hundreds of billions worth of rocket trips. That's quite an offset to the potential gains, not even addressing how you get large quantities of material down to Earth without it falling as a meteor! Pure gold might be worthwhile, given its value per ton, but even then you'd need a capsule with a landing chute large enough to decelerate the mass of gold. A ton of gold is worth $58 million at current prices... the reentry vehicle costs required to get it down at current reentry prices per kg would be.... $40 million. Sending all the materials into space costs $20 million per ton, currently. So, say you need 10 tons of materials to get the mining operation up and running on the asteroid... that's $200 million JUST TO START MINING. So, if you're only making $18 million per ton of gold produced, it'd take 11 tons of gold successfully landed on Earth JUST TO START TURNING A PROFIT, and that assumes NOTHING EVER GOES WRONG WITH ANYTHING in the entire process.

Basically, anything mined in space is going to STAY in space and be used for constructing space infrastructure. Other metals will be far more important than gold for that venture.

Yes ... instead of drill core costs around $500 per linear meter ..... your first 100 meters of drill core would be calcualted in the billions per linear meter.

 

[andu]

Mining ANYTHING in space and returning large amounts of it to Earth is currently a pipe dream anyway. The sheer cost of setting up a mining operation on an asteroid is nearly incalculable, since you'd need to bring ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING into space required for the operation. We're talking hundreds of billions worth of rocket trips. That's quite an offset to the potential gains, not even addressing how you get large quantities of material down to Earth without it falling as a meteor! Pure gold might be worthwhile, given its value per ton, but even then you'd need a capsule with a landing chute large enough to decelerate the mass of gold. A ton of gold is worth $58 million at current prices... the reentry vehicle costs required to get it down at current reentry prices per kg would be.... $40 million. Sending all the materials into space costs $20 million per ton, currently. So, say you need 10 tons of materials to get the mining operation up and running on the asteroid... that's $200 million JUST TO START MINING. So, if you're only making $18 million per ton of gold produced, it'd take 11 tons of gold successfully landed on Earth JUST TO START TURNING A PROFIT, and that assumes NOTHING EVER GOES WRONG WITH ANYTHING in the entire process.

Basically, anything mined in space is going to STAY in space and be used for constructing space infrastructure. Other metals will be far more important than gold for that venture.

I disagree, first of all i see 200m as dirt cheap for the endeavour.
Second, mining asteroids or mining the moon/mars is a different thing but both are completely feasible if it was actually wanted.
Maybe for a while it will stay, look at the ISS instead of crashing it on the moon and start researching space/0g casting and recycling they want to toss it into point nemo.