This is very good material and sound economic points. When you tie this to trade, immigration, and anti-trust (monopsony) policy, wages are greatly suppressed and gains transferred to a very concentrated class. Add in regulatory and government subsidies, prices for housing, healthcare, education all increase much faster than income. Balance sheets matter, two. Elizabeth Warren's Two-Income Trap does a decent job of talking about risk transfer as well. Usury or financialization is another problem. When one throws in the sexual revolution, birth control, abortions, and massive licit and illicit drugs flooding the market plus demoralization, it all adds up to an attack on the family and the Christian West. It appears to be an anti-Christian project meant to eliminate Christendom and properly ordered society. This is a world ruled by the spirit of anti-Christ.
Goldbuggery? Sold! There’s actually less of a historic spread between the S&P and BTC than you might think. Just scroll through the nonsense here and find the Guy Swann chart:
You played the hits and it was great. Really enjoyed the discussion about bitcoin as a bearer bond and the implications. Haven’t heard some of the analogies before. Also, I’m sorry to inform you that there are YT commenters who have said you are racist. When are they going to figure out the R-word doesn’t work anymore?
Why in earth would the government confiscate all the gold in 1933? Why did they close 15,000 banks in 1933? If you said to destroy 10,000 banks outside the Federal reserve system and make God damn sure to maximize the great depression by shutting down a parallel payment system you would be dead right
Well FDR and his wife were communists, which explains much of it
The Fed angle is an interesting one. I think they also wanted to take power out of the hands of the JP Morgan-style WASP banking elite, and put it in new hands
So many dubious assumptions about economics here. As someone who works in the housing tech industry, the idea that homes’ materials have not changed (cf. “Plaster is sturdier than drywall”) is completely false. Due to market dynamics and the economy, the value of building materials and their utility to the homeowners have dramatically improved, even in the last ten years, when looking at a metric like energy efficiency.
Measuring against gold sounds great because it's absolute, but the problem is the price of gold is also measured in fiat currency after a certain point. There is no longer a policy of exchange rates underlying anything.
Re-do this analysis with the cost of food, the cost of a television, or the cost of clothing, and you'll find everyone looks exorbitantly wealthy. This is a key point: substitute in gold with any good, especially something that people actually care about, and you'll find 1000 different stories. This is why people who seriously propose removing fiat generally want there to be a basket of goods, not just gold. Because gold is just one thing that doesn't affect most people. Also, China can't manipulate the global currency supply by flooding the market with gold if there's a basket of goods.
It's well known that the labor share of capital has gone down. This is true and is bad, and has generally been played down or ignored by both left and right for decades. However, none of that actually affects anyone if economic growth on real terms occurs. Measuring against gold doesn't really capture this because it's possible that for literally everything you care about in life (food, clothing, housing, cars, fuel), you can buy more of, even if measured in "gold terms" you can buy less. Who cares if you can buy less gold!
As an aside, Patrick Deneen has pointed out that when liberalism inevitably fails on its promises for endless economic growth (the "rising tide that lifts all boats"), then the whole system will come crashing down, because the increasing income inequality will actually start to make people absolutely poorer rathee than just siphon off the new growth. So while I agree wage increases are sorely needed in the long run, the currency thing is mostly a sham. It's a supply problem. There's a massive under apply of construction due to many factors, but mostly due to burdensome land and labor regulations.
If the problem is supply, then why is housing still expensive in mostly deregulated markets like Houston?
And further, you say people can buy more of everything because of economic growth. That's not really true. Grain-based food, perhaps, and some clothing make you look "exorbitantly wealthy." This isn't particularly true of beef, oil, a nice suit - all of which cost about the same, priced in gold terms, as they always have. So there are some foods and finished goods quite impacted by technological improvements that are cheaper.
But certainly not housing, whether the materials are more energy efficient or not. That's gotten more expensive, whether you price it in fiat or something real like gold.
Because housing is a national market, not a regional one. Cf. 2007-2009.
Also, the price of homes does differ wildly across metro markets. A new home in Huntington Alabama will still set you under 400k. In Massachusetts where I live, good look getting it under 800k. The median sale price of all homes here is 970k. Houston is probably around 400-500k for new construction. There are enormous swings, even as overall national production around places with job markets has massively been under constructed.
People tend to behave well in good environments. It seems to me that we incentivise the wrong things eg, profit, greed etc. Now naturally this is a cyclical process, one aspect feeding the other. I don't know what it will take for us to be free of tyrants - a certain unbreakable humility? Much of what holds sway over people is life's needs and comforts. But some things are worse than death. Endlessly propagandised to want what the globalists want keeps the collective heads down. I have no idea how to break out the masses but I hope one day they do.
What matters is the price of things relative to wages or household wealth. Inflation affects wages too. We would not be 10x richer relative to prices of a basket of goods and services with the gold standard.
This is what the whole second half of the article is about: wages have fallen precipitously, priced in real terms, and the cost of things like housing has not
But again, this is sorta misleading. Falling in real terms on the basis of gold is mostly meaningless for the average household, which doesn't buy gold. Things like food, fuel, clothing, appliances, etc., make way more sense to use on a basis in order to capture how a family would actually "feel" richer or poorer.
This has been the case since at least the Middle Ages. A man having to show he had a functioning income stream and place to live was long essentially a prerequisite for marriage, and particularly for having kids
In Manhattan perhaps this isn't true, but having families in a place they own rather than rent is both common and seems broadly good.
This is very good material and sound economic points. When you tie this to trade, immigration, and anti-trust (monopsony) policy, wages are greatly suppressed and gains transferred to a very concentrated class. Add in regulatory and government subsidies, prices for housing, healthcare, education all increase much faster than income. Balance sheets matter, two. Elizabeth Warren's Two-Income Trap does a decent job of talking about risk transfer as well. Usury or financialization is another problem. When one throws in the sexual revolution, birth control, abortions, and massive licit and illicit drugs flooding the market plus demoralization, it all adds up to an attack on the family and the Christian West. It appears to be an anti-Christian project meant to eliminate Christendom and properly ordered society. This is a world ruled by the spirit of anti-Christ.
Absolutely
It's certainly an attack on normal people and tradition, in my opinion, meant to wipe out any connection to the past or future
Goldbuggery? Sold! There’s actually less of a historic spread between the S&P and BTC than you might think. Just scroll through the nonsense here and find the Guy Swann chart:
https://open.substack.com/pub/undergrounddesigns/p/win-underground-designs-btc
Oh, it's very interesting. I think gold has beat at least the DJIA since 2000, including dividends.
Guy Swann is very interesting. If you're interested in BTC, I just went on Robert Breedlove's show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGqM4xHS_Kk
Yes! otw to the gym with nothing in my podcast hopper. Well timed
Wonderful! let me know what you think. It’s also up on the other podcast platforms, which is probably easier to listen to than youtube at the gym
You played the hits and it was great. Really enjoyed the discussion about bitcoin as a bearer bond and the implications. Haven’t heard some of the analogies before. Also, I’m sorry to inform you that there are YT commenters who have said you are racist. When are they going to figure out the R-word doesn’t work anymore?
Lol any mention of Rhodesia is treated as racism.
Robert, I'm glad to say, was very open to the discussion and pulled none of that. He seemed to find the topic fascinating and worthy of study
Why in earth would the government confiscate all the gold in 1933? Why did they close 15,000 banks in 1933? If you said to destroy 10,000 banks outside the Federal reserve system and make God damn sure to maximize the great depression by shutting down a parallel payment system you would be dead right
Well FDR and his wife were communists, which explains much of it
The Fed angle is an interesting one. I think they also wanted to take power out of the hands of the JP Morgan-style WASP banking elite, and put it in new hands
So many dubious assumptions about economics here. As someone who works in the housing tech industry, the idea that homes’ materials have not changed (cf. “Plaster is sturdier than drywall”) is completely false. Due to market dynamics and the economy, the value of building materials and their utility to the homeowners have dramatically improved, even in the last ten years, when looking at a metric like energy efficiency.
Measuring against gold sounds great because it's absolute, but the problem is the price of gold is also measured in fiat currency after a certain point. There is no longer a policy of exchange rates underlying anything.
Re-do this analysis with the cost of food, the cost of a television, or the cost of clothing, and you'll find everyone looks exorbitantly wealthy. This is a key point: substitute in gold with any good, especially something that people actually care about, and you'll find 1000 different stories. This is why people who seriously propose removing fiat generally want there to be a basket of goods, not just gold. Because gold is just one thing that doesn't affect most people. Also, China can't manipulate the global currency supply by flooding the market with gold if there's a basket of goods.
It's well known that the labor share of capital has gone down. This is true and is bad, and has generally been played down or ignored by both left and right for decades. However, none of that actually affects anyone if economic growth on real terms occurs. Measuring against gold doesn't really capture this because it's possible that for literally everything you care about in life (food, clothing, housing, cars, fuel), you can buy more of, even if measured in "gold terms" you can buy less. Who cares if you can buy less gold!
As an aside, Patrick Deneen has pointed out that when liberalism inevitably fails on its promises for endless economic growth (the "rising tide that lifts all boats"), then the whole system will come crashing down, because the increasing income inequality will actually start to make people absolutely poorer rathee than just siphon off the new growth. So while I agree wage increases are sorely needed in the long run, the currency thing is mostly a sham. It's a supply problem. There's a massive under apply of construction due to many factors, but mostly due to burdensome land and labor regulations.
If the problem is supply, then why is housing still expensive in mostly deregulated markets like Houston?
And further, you say people can buy more of everything because of economic growth. That's not really true. Grain-based food, perhaps, and some clothing make you look "exorbitantly wealthy." This isn't particularly true of beef, oil, a nice suit - all of which cost about the same, priced in gold terms, as they always have. So there are some foods and finished goods quite impacted by technological improvements that are cheaper.
But certainly not housing, whether the materials are more energy efficient or not. That's gotten more expensive, whether you price it in fiat or something real like gold.
Because housing is a national market, not a regional one. Cf. 2007-2009.
Also, the price of homes does differ wildly across metro markets. A new home in Huntington Alabama will still set you under 400k. In Massachusetts where I live, good look getting it under 800k. The median sale price of all homes here is 970k. Houston is probably around 400-500k for new construction. There are enormous swings, even as overall national production around places with job markets has massively been under constructed.
Houston may not call it 'zoning', but Houston regulates lot sizes, setbacks, parking minimums, etc:
https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoning_in_the_United_States#Houston,_1948%E2%80%931993
Very interesting, thank you
People tend to behave well in good environments. It seems to me that we incentivise the wrong things eg, profit, greed etc. Now naturally this is a cyclical process, one aspect feeding the other. I don't know what it will take for us to be free of tyrants - a certain unbreakable humility? Much of what holds sway over people is life's needs and comforts. But some things are worse than death. Endlessly propagandised to want what the globalists want keeps the collective heads down. I have no idea how to break out the masses but I hope one day they do.
Some of this is certain incentives, particularly the issue of wages being depressed
What matters is the price of things relative to wages or household wealth. Inflation affects wages too. We would not be 10x richer relative to prices of a basket of goods and services with the gold standard.
This is what the whole second half of the article is about: wages have fallen precipitously, priced in real terms, and the cost of things like housing has not
But again, this is sorta misleading. Falling in real terms on the basis of gold is mostly meaningless for the average household, which doesn't buy gold. Things like food, fuel, clothing, appliances, etc., make way more sense to use on a basis in order to capture how a family would actually "feel" richer or poorer.
Young people typically need to be a homeowner before having babies?
It wasn’t like that in my generation. Oh my, have times changed.
This has been the case since at least the Middle Ages. A man having to show he had a functioning income stream and place to live was long essentially a prerequisite for marriage, and particularly for having kids
In Manhattan perhaps this isn't true, but having families in a place they own rather than rent is both common and seems broadly good.
Indeed. Good point