Regarding the gold reserve currency article in todays Drumbeat.
I have read that if you totalled all of the gold mined in history it would amount to only one ounce for each person alive today. It seems that there would have to be a tremendous contraction in oil sales to allow a gold for oil exchange system .
I can understand the desire of those that hold a valuable commodity to be uncomfortable exchanging it for dollars but it seems there is not enough gold to make it work.
Maybe I am missing something?

I've thought about this as well. Guess the price would be about $20k an ounce to be a meaningful exchange rate in todays dollars. The whole purpose of gold standard is to limit the creation of money on a whim. There's a story that gets told on the gold websites about hotels for sale during the depression in SanFran for 4oz of gold or $140. Pretty wild when you think that the hotels now cost millions. I guess we can subdivide as needed? Any idea on the amount of ounces per person for silver?

Wasn't that long ago that a billion was consider alot of money. You could make the argument that it makes no sense to save since your money will be worthless eventually. As with alot of things, Heinlein said it best.

$100 placed at 7 percent interest compounded quarterly for 200 years will increase to more than $100,000,000 — by which time it will be worth nothing.

Wasn't that long ago that a billion was consider alot of money. You could make the argument that it makes no sense to save since your money will be worthless eventually.

You might be interested in a pair of linked articles on why you should save and what you can expect your money to be worth: Inflation Deflated and How to Build a Lifeboat.

Stoneleigh
You and Ilargi do a great job with "The Automatic Earth".

Regards,
Gunga

In the interest of presenting both side, it must be noted that the federal reserve will do everything in its power to see to it that the deflation Stoneleigh is describing does not occur. They even published what they plan on doing to stop it back in 2003. And they have pretty much stuck with this script.

"Monetary Policy in a Zero-Interest-Rate Economy". (pdf format)
http://www.dallasfed.org/research/indepth/2003/id0304.pdf

"Policy-makers can find themselves in serious trouble if they come up against the zero interest-rate bound during a period of falling prices–that is, during a period of deflation. That’s because what ultimately matters to households and firms is the real cost of borrowing–what economists call the real interest rate."

Lots of good stuff in it showing what the fed will/is doing. Nice graph on page three, showing how the high deflation rate of the depression was followed by a period of double digit inflation.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that there is a “plan” or a “conspiracy”, but it would appear that everyone in the fed/government knows what options are available and as each one fails, they just move on to the next.

Next up will be “The goods & services solution”. From the Fed paper:

“The strategy can be implemented, however, by coordination with fiscal policy-makers. The Federal government, for example, could purchase goods and services and finance the purchases with new debt, which the Fed in turn would buy–in technical terminology, the Fed would ‘monetize’ the resulting debt.”

As to whether inflation or deflation wins? My guess is both.

IMO we see deflation first, then inflation. Good luck to the US government borrowing the money they would need to go the goods and services route. The bond market is still in charge for the time being, and unless they want to precipitate an interest rate crisis they'll have to keep the lid on debt monetization to some extent. Right now the flight to safety is giving them some leeway, but when that ends the real problems begin.

So far, all the monetization that they've done hasn't kept pace with credit destruction, and every bluff the market calls makes them look more desperate the next time. Those bluffs will keep being called until it's obvious that when everything is guaranteed, nothing is.

Is the flight to safety going to end?

Where else are they going to go?

It's starting to remind me of that Monty Python sketch, where the buildings stay up only if everyone believes in them.

Architect: Of course they're safe. There's absolutely no doubt about that. They are as strong, solid and as safe as any other building method in this country provided of course people believe in them.

Tenant: Yes, we received a note from the Council saying that if we ceased to believe in this building it would fall down.

Voice Over: You don't mind living in a figment of another man's imagination?

Tenant: No, it's much better than where we used to live.

I don't doubt that there are serious and likely fatal problems in our economic system, but I'm starting to think people will continue to believe in architect/hypnotist Bernanke's invisible buildings for a long time to come.