|
|
I thought Blondie's excellent comment was
just about good enough to be a post. And when RJ called it Sermon on the
Mount material, that tipped the scale. But be
careful not to miss the forest for the trees, or the fractal for the chaos,
because Blondie pretty much nails it. It's all in the view—the
perspective. And even though you may not be a giant, you can still learn to
view the world as a giant with a little practice. It's easier than you might
think. All you have to do is gently set your shrimp baggage on the ground and
walk away.
Blondie on the Mount
Another said:
"Gold! It is the only medium that
currencies do not "move thru". It is the only Money that cannot be
valued by currencies. It is gold that denominates currency. It is to say
"gold moves thru paper currencies"
If this statement appears the least bit cryptic, if it does not make
100% crystal clear sense, then little else written on this blog by either the
contributors or the scant few commenters who do understand it will
make complete sense to you, despite your best efforts.
You see, my friend, in this world there are two types of people: those who
PRODUCE, and those who consume. YOU consume.
Those who PRODUCE, and there is perfectly good reason why it is written in
caps, are giants. Everyone else, including YOU, is a shrimp.
Another’s statement above is the perspective of the giants, not the
shrimps. So don’t feel bad if its inherent truth is not self-evident,
you have simply never directly experienced life as a giant. No shame in that!
That in itself means nothing at all.
Except that you don’t have the perspective from which to understand
gold. So you'll have to build it from scratch.
In this case actually understanding gold means firstly having to discard an
awful lot of fundamental beliefs about the way things work. This is also the
single biggest barrier to discussing gold with anyone else… they will
never understand without ditching some of what they hold as fundamental
beliefs, so you may as well not bother. If you win anyone over it is
ultimately only because of their faith in you and your perceptions, not their
own understanding. But I digress.
You may appreciate that we need gold to fix our monetary system, but that
does not mean you actually understand how gold really functions.
Gold functions as the ultimate store of value. Nice words, nice idea, but you
are a shrimp. You’ve never had value in a quantity that needed storing.
Sure you may have “savings”, but you’ve never personally
experienced diminishing marginal utility to the degree that gold’s
function becomes apparent, so it remains a theory. There is a monumental
difference between mere theory and theory corroborated by experience. The
latter has graduated from theory to fact.
This is the basis of my previous comment about ‘new money’ and
the fact that it does not necessarily understand gold. New money for the most
part believes it has its surplus value securely stored in various financial
instruments. Old money (real giants) knows better. This perspective is also
why the idea that Oil would not require physical gold for their surplus is
preposterous.
Another told you that you could follow in the footsteps of giants, and you
can, but if you want to see their perspective there’s a bit more
involved.
Newsflash: $US HI already happened. That’s what the ‘structural
support’ since the early ‘80s has been in aid of, to avoid the
conclusion of this process. As FOFOA has pointed out so clearly, as long as
the marginal flow of excess dollars emitted by the US is absorbed into the
market the dollar can continue to function. The devaluation of the currency
is a market driven event, the final stage of every HI, but it does not
occur as long as the excess currency is absorbed. Some entities have not
wanted it to occur until they were better prepared, so they have, at no small
cost, supplied the structural support to delay the denouement. Obviously they
felt the costs were outweighed by the benefits.
The revaluation of gold is a distinctly separate though concurrent event.
If you understand how gold works you will appreciate that the giants have no
incentive to directly trigger either of these separate but simultaneous
events… they already have their gold, and they already know its value
(and who wants to be blamed for something that was completely unavoidable?).
If you don’t need to access the value you have stored in gold, then it
is really irrelevant to you what the market currently values gold at. They
don’t need the shrimps to tell them anything; rather it is the shrimps who need to wise up. Shrimps are the same ones objecting
to “austerity” aka living within one’s means. Doesn’t
occur to them that the fantasy may have been the time when they lived over
and above their means, does it?
I got a good laugh from this article, particularly the opening paragraphs:
"So what is it about money that the leaders of the eurozone don't get?
Money has been around for a while, and it's not terribly complicated.
The key element is trust. That was true when money was a piece of metal that
you could bite or bounce. Now that money is just a piece of paper, it's even
truer. Today's money is nothing but trust.
That's why the euro crisis is so bizarre. The euro is, in theory, one of the
world's great currencies. And yet, as this crisis has demonstrated, nobody
actually stands behind it. There is no lender of last resort. There is no
"full faith and credit." There's nobody on the other end of the
promise.
And it's as if the leaders of the eurozone wanted
to go out of their way to prove it. They've taken us up to the velvet curtain
and then themselves, with a self-satisfied smile, pulled it aside to show us
that there is no Great Oz.
And in the process they've done major, and perhaps irretrievable, damage to
their own currency and to the very idea of money in our time. If you can't
trust the euro, what paper can you trust?"
Looks to me like the “leaders of the eurozone”
get it fine… the author is simply under the presumption he understands
money. Doesn’t seem to have occurred to him that he may not.
He’s definitely not alone.
FOFOA:
"It's just a shift in the perception of savers.
Can't change that."
“Savers”: those producers who currently do not understand
gold.
Consumers (shrimps) are just along for the ride.
As I said at the top, if Another’s statement is not crystal clear you
don’t understand gold, so don’t delude yourself that you do, and
bear this in mind when you compose a comment.
I've no doubt my comments will upset some people. That doesn't mean they're
not correct, just that some people don't like them. A bit like
"austerity" perhaps
milamber said:
"... to this western shrimp’s mind, there is a whole lot of
unlearning that I have had/am having to do!"
I appreciate that, having been there too. To be honest, it's not as difficult
as it appears. Like many others, it became clear to me a few years ago that
big things were going down. I felt compelled to find out what. It wasn't a
big step to see that this was entirely a monetary issue. When I thought about
it, I couldn't produce a really good definition of money, so ... I had some
work to do. Build yourself a good definition and Another's perspective, not
to mention the world at large, start making a lot more sense.
|
|
