Comment: You are so exactly right.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Dollar (see in situ)

Cyril's picture

You are so exactly right.

You are so exactly right. We need to stop thinking in such biased terms, as you point out.

See, like many of us I've been sitting on my hands since the mid 90s when I started working. "Sitting on my hands" re: my own understanding of money, that is.

This is well over. I've eventually recalled for good now, about some personal vivid memories.

I recall seeing some family and relatives struggling in the mid 80s, to just sustain ourselves, on another continent (albeit not so different from here, in past or present).

Thus, I eventually asked myself: what was gold worth back then, btw? Answer: $300/oz.

And what was the minimum wage in French francs, monthly, to be able to afford a rent, food, utilities for a 3 or 4 person family? Answer: 4,200 francs (25 FRF x 8 hours x 22 working days)

Hourly french minimum wage, history, source:

What was the dollar strength, even underestimating it after the socialists plunder on our french GDP growth? 7 francs for one US dollar.


Again: underestimate of the USD vs. the franc of the time.

I love facts. For, they're like me: DARN STUBBORN.

What does that mean?

That means that 2 ounces of gold were already just enough to sustain a struggling small family, for a monthly minimum wage. No debt, just living very humbly.

Still, LIVING. Without debt or stealing from others.

What can the American people do TODAY with a monthly 1 person minimum wage income in fiat USD?

Finally: then, how does that compare to what they can do with 2 ounces of gold?

Can someone, TODAY, have a roof AND provide food, AND energy for TWO adults, AND TWO kids, with NO DEBT, with NO govt assistance, with $1,200 a month, yet not willing to hurt themselves with more than that one job?

Now, same question, but how about 2 x $1,300 = $2,600 a month (when in gold)?

Isn't the latter a tiny little bit more bearable?

How come the honest working, small humblest people, have seen their monthly sweat translated FROM TWO ounces of gold (and equiv. purchasing power) down to ONLY ONE ounce?

How come, "indeed"?

That's what I usually like to ask to anybody with "two working neurons" on this matter, and serious about giving thoughts to it, starting with THE BASICS. I don't think it's any formidable thing to consider, really. Is it?

So... Are we supposed to expect and accept passively, like a deer in the headlights, that it'd be cut in half, AGAIN, in 20 more years, if not sooner?


In truth:

Nobody can serve me b.s. with the stocks, fiat money, or govt entitlements any longer.


And that would still hold at $900/oz for gold.

Which I currently almost pray for to see.

Gold "weak" at $1,300/oz?

At $1,100/oz?

At $900/oz?

Or even: at $600/oz?

Such a grossly tasteless joke. Almost insulting, rationally speaking.

For those who can use their memory.

Gold is still very, very precious TO ME.

I don't love it. It's just money. But I have respect for it.

I have no respect but contempt for my dollar or euro bills.

But sure, YMMV.


"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius