Currency Wars Contradiction?

[balz]

I've just finished the book everyone is talking about: Currency Wars.

It is well written and very interesting. However, there is something that I don't like: I feel like the author contradicts himself.

In one of the larger chapter of the book, he is quoting Tainter about the collapse of complex societies and how at some point a bigger system fails because each time a system gets larger it takes more resources to make it work (e.g. exponential). Then, at the end of the book, he promotes a return to the Gold Standard and adds that it can only exist on a global scale.

Maybe I am missing the point, but I don't understand how a failing system which is too big and is running on fumes (e.g. peak oil) can save itself by becoming even bigger and more globally connected.

What is your opinion?

[Sheikh_yer_Bu'Tay]

Sorry, I have not read the book. I would hazard a guess to be ready for as many different contingencies as possible.

[Lemon Thrower]

i'm on chapter 3.

rickards is very insightful but be careful. he's an insider. he was there when LTCM went down and got bailed out. supposedly this is how Italy lost its gold.

rickards insights are not unique - every central banker is aware of these things but just chooses not to promote these ideas.

I believe Rickards like Roubini are part of the PTB even though they pretend not to be.

Getting to you point, yes its a contradiction. I think Rickards is privvy to the fact that the entire global currency system is being reworked and he's trying to get gold as the solution.

Its possible that the U.S. still has a lot of gold and will come up with some sort of faux gold reserve (sounds like gold backed, but isn't) currency system.

[balz]

Its possible that the U.S. still has a lot of gold and will come up with some sort of faux gold reserve (sounds like gold backed, but isn't) currency system.

What do you think consequences would be if this pseudo-gold standard happen?

Rickards is great to explain things; I've yet to read a better explanation of keynesianism, monetarism and the complex theory. It is stunning that he says he totally believes in complex theory (which states that each time a system gets more complex the risk increases tenfold) then promote another layer of complexity.

Another interesting thing is that he rightfully consider money as a store of energy and the coming collapse as the fact that we will lack the energy to keep the complexity working. However, he does not talk much about Peak Oil and about the REAL SHORTAGE of energy that is about to begin (or as already begun).

Maybe he is promoting an idea or, as an insider, testing the water for a new global pseudo gold backed currency (SDR?).

In any case, I don't think more complexity and more global interconnections will help a world that is too complex and too global.

[Lemon Thrower]

as i said i have barely made a dent in the book.

rickards is an interesting speaker, and he is remarkable in that he is divulging these truths and one of the few people doing so.

i haven't gotten to his contradiction in his book but i am entirely serious when i say that he may be a liar. if he was part of the LTCM crowd that got bailed out, then he is an insider. if he's an insider and revealing this information, you have to ask for what purpose. I don't believe he's one of the good guys.

Jim Sinclair on the other hand is one of the good guys. Jim has talked about a gold certificate ratio in which new currency issue will be capped by a gold coverage ratio, say 40%. Not strict exchangeabiltiy but a restraint on new issue nonetheless. JS predicted it would go this way 4 years ago maybe. Unlike Rickards, JS is a man of few words and often is not clear.

[balz]

as i said i have barely made a dent in the book.

rickards is an interesting speaker, and he is remarkable in that he is divulging these truths and one of the few people doing so.

i haven't gotten to his contradiction in his book but i am entirely serious when i say that he may be a liar. if he was part of the LTCM crowd that got bailed out, then he is an insider. if he's an insider and revealing this information, you have to ask for what purpose. I don't believe he's one of the good guys.

Jim Sinclair on the other hand is one of the good guys. Jim has talked about a gold certificate ratio in which new currency issue will be capped by a gold coverage ratio, say 40%. Not strict exchangeabiltiy but a restraint on new issue nonetheless. JS predicted it would go this way 4 years ago maybe. Unlike Rickards, JS is a man of few words and often is not clear.

I have read Sinclair and watched some youtube video. He is a very clever man. I like him.

However, I don't think the idea would work unless everyone in the world accepts this new money (this is also Rickards opinion as you will see later in his book) because some might be tempted to devaluate their currencies to boost their economy in the short term.

IMHO I don't see this 40%-gold backed currency working because it's rather complex and people will be skeptical about using it as a store of value... Not talking about the fact that we know, from experience, that a gold standard fails because they always print too much... We'll see...

In the end it all comes down to what one think the destruction will be. Sinclair maybe think this is a monetary problem. I think this is a civilizational collapse. But who am I anyway!

[Lemon Thrower]

sinclair is not recommending this or saying it will work necessarily. he's just saying this where its headed.