they're going to a mixed system; gold will be voluntary.
This will certainly be something everyone should watch closely. Go Utah
It would also exempt the sale of gold from the state capital gains tax
Why do you say that? What is this supposed to accomplish exactly?
Why anyone would pay with gold rather than a card is beyond me. Besides, the value of a speck of gold fluctuates rather consistently. This is good news for those who sell digital scales in Utah i guess.
My guess would be that Utah is trying to see which currency works better, debt based fiat currency or hard currency. Again as I said it is something worth watching
Gold standard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Silver standard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
We aren't going to get anywhere by taking steps backward. We need to begin to seriously consider how we can implement an energy currency.
Our bodies run on energy currency (ATP), we heat our homes with energy, we run our cars with energy, we grow our food with energy, we make all our material things with energy, etc.
There are all sorts of supplies of stored energy; oil, gas, biofeuls, wind, solar, nuclear, etc.
It is only logical that our currency should reflect reality. Gold became an outdated standard the day that we developed the ability to split atoms.
so the dollar isn't fluctuating, it's the gold?
hahahahahaha.
Utah also is heavily invested in natural gas as a resource. Not sure what you are looking for as an energy currency. Hopefully something more compelling than the carbon exchange. Please expound.
It looks like its not just Utah but 13 states at this point that are examining it. And if you look at what it says in the article, my immediate thought is that when people pay their taxes in gold, a state banks the gold as an investment. When the dollar continues to loose current value, the state investments are much more solid. It sounds like smart fiscal sense. Of course...mindless politically motivated idiots are immediately going to see some conspiracy, and not future planning from one of the few states that has managed to maintain a responsible fiscal policy.
In 1999 gold was selling for about $290 an oz. and a screen printed t-shirt cost about $7 at Walmart. Now that screen printed t is about $8, and the price of an oz of gold is about $1,400. In 1999 I could have purchased about 41 screen printed t-shirts at walmart for the value of an oz of gold, now I can purchase 175 t's at walmart for an oz of gold.
Assuming that the value of a screen printed t-shirt is about the same that it was in 1999, thus setting it as a standard in value, the dollar has deflated by about 15%, but gold has inflated by nearly 500%.
In 1979 it hit $850/oz, by 1983 it was down to $350 an oz. This was during the most inflationary period for the dollar ever - the dollar was loosing value rapidly and gold lost value at a rate of many times the devaluation of the dollar.
History proves that the dollar has been much more stable in value than gold. In additition to the stability of the dollar, it is much more predictable in value than gold. The dollar has rarely gone up in value, so over a period of time we know in advance that it is pretty safe to assume that our dollars will purchase a few less tshirts in the future, however it is not safe to assume anything about the price of gold (in relationship to the value of a tshirt) as gold could purchase more tshirts or less tshirts in the future.
Moving to a very unstable commidity in order to stabilize the value of currency makes as much sense as trading in an economy car for a limo to save gas.
Ya, there are kooks and morons, oops I mean tea baggers, in every state.
I actually think that individual states trying to go on the gold standard is a cool idea. I like experiments. I however am not looking forward to having to price my goods in multible currencies or having to check the price of gold every time I make a financial transaction.
To put it simply, energy is our utlimate limited resource. As such, our economy should be based on it. If we had unlimited energy at our disposal then the limiting resource would be material resources, but even things like fresh water can be made if we have an adequate supply of energy.
I envision that as our technology develops and we develop new ways to store energy we will use those as currency instead. Imagine using AA batteries as currency instead of using paper or gold. Except in this case, the AA battery would probably have enough energy to heat your house for a month.
In 1999 gold was selling for about $290 an oz. and a screen printed t-shirt cost about $7 at Walmart. Now that screen printed t is about $8, and the price of an oz of gold is about $1,400. In 1999 I could have purchased about 41 screen printed t-shirts at walmart for the value of an oz of gold, now I can purchase 175 t's at walmart for an oz of gold.
Assuming that the value of a screen printed t-shirt is about the same that it was in 1999, thus setting it as a standard in value, the dollar has deflated by about 15%, but gold has inflated by nearly 500%.
In 1979 it hit $850/oz, by 1983 it was down to $350 an oz. This was during the most inflationary period for the dollar ever - the dollar was loosing value rapidly and gold lost value at a rate of many times the devaluation of the dollar.
History proves that the dollar has been much more stable in value than gold. In additition to the stability of the dollar, it is much more predictable in value than gold. The dollar has rarely gone up in value, so over a period of time we know in advance that it is pretty safe to assume that our dollars will purchase a few less tshirts in the future, however it is not safe to assume anything about the price of gold (in relationship to the value of a tshirt) as gold could purchase more tshirts or less tshirts in the future.
Moving to a very unstable commidity in order to stabilize the value of currency makes as much sense as trading in an economy car for a limo to save gas.
But thats just it. Using two currencies side by side, both fiat and hard currency at once, is no way to test which one is better. The principle is called Gresham's law, that when the king issueth two monies, the good shalll drive out the bad. That means that if both gold and fiat money are used as currency, people will hoard whichever one is more valuable. Probably gold. And so the only money circulating will be the worthless money.
So if the governnment is still enforcing worthless paper as if it has the same value as gold, concurrent with gold, people are probably gonna just hoard their gold and spend their paper. Which one would you spend, given the choice?
Having two currencies is not a test for which is better, it is an invitation to game the system.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?