PDA

View Full Version : John Q. Public Published in NWTMint Newsletter



JohnQPublic
18th June 2010, 01:03 PM
NW Territorial Mint published one of my articles in their newsletter. The introduction also introduces Gold-Silver.US. You can sign up for their newsletters here: http://bullion.nwtmint.com/investor_guide.php

The article is based on my GSUS article What Do Silver and Gold Buy? (http://www.gold-silver.us/what_silver_gold_buys.html). My article was split into to two parts to be published in two successive NWTMint newsletters. Here is part one as published:

Purchasing Power of Gold and Silver: 2010 and 1903
by John Q. Public

“John Q. Public” writes for www.Gold-Silver.US, a forum for the discussion of gold, silver and precious metals and tracking “the ongoing collapse of the financial system and all its implications.” The author has also used the nom de web, “Joe Sixpack.”

We often hear that we could never go back to a gold or bimetallic (gold and silver) standard, because there is not enough gold and silver in the world to do so. But is this actually the case? In the 19th century and much of the 20th century, the United States used a gold standard or a bimetallic (gold and silver) standard of some type. Even then, not every dollar in circulation was minted as a coin – in fact most were not.

An analysis of the purchasing power of gold and silver in 2010 and 1903 reveals that these precious metals could perform essentially the same function now as they did at the turn of the last century.

In 1903, there was no Federal Reserve System. The US was on a gold standard, but both gold and silver circulated as money.

Silver was permitted to float relative to gold (no 16:1 or other fixed monetary ratio).

There was no income tax in 1903, so more of money earned went to the worker.

The population of the USA was around 80.8 million (US Population Statistics, Bob McCaughey). Today it is around 307 million (US Census Bureau estimate, May 2010).

Comparison of silver and gold purchasing power: 2010 and 1903

To compare the purchasing power of silver and gold today vs. 1903, please note the following data:

US population 1903 = 80.8 million

World population 1903 = 1.6 billion (www.Geography.about.com)

US population 2010 = 307 million World population 2010 = 6.9 billion (www.Geography.about.com)

The current US population is 3.8 times what it was in 1903, and the current world population is 4.3 times what it was in 1903. Since these population growth ratios are so similar, an average of the two is used for this analysis. This average ratio is 4.05.

The silver and gold market is worldwide, and there is potential for silver and gold to be used as money in many places in the world. Finally, the US has always purchased (and sold) some silver and gold in foreign markets.

As for the metals themselves, according to the USGS, the world production of silver in 2008 (nearest year available) was 4.08 times what it was in 1903; for gold, 4.6 times what it was in 1903.

Defining purchasing power of a commodity as being proportional to the population (i.e., more population is more demand), and inversely proportional to the production rate (i.e., less commodity is less supply and thus higher purchasing power) we can use these ratios to compare the purchasing power of silver and gold today (2010) vs. 1903.

2010 Purchasing Power of Silver in 1903 Scenario = Population Ratio/Silver Production Ratio = 4.05/4.08 = 0.99 or 99%. This means that 1 Troy oz. of silver in 2010 should purchase 99% of what it did on 1903. Conversely wages in 2010 should be 101% of what they were ion 1903 on a silver basis.

2010 Purchasing Power of Gold in 1903 Scenario = Population Ratio/Gold Production Ratio = 4.05/4.6 = 0.88 or 88%. This means that 1 Troy oz. of gold in 2010 should purchase 88% of what it did on 1903. Conversely wages in 2010 should be 114% of what they were in 1903 on a gold basis.

What is this analysis reveals is that, over more than a century, there has not been a huge change in the purchasing power of gold and silver. The amount of production of gold and silver per capita is actually a little higher in 2010 than it was in 1903! This means that if there was enough gold and silver to be used in 1903 to the extent it was and in the manner it was (i.e., fractional reserve basis), the same could be true today!

Disclaimer: This is a hypothetical analysis, and cannot be verified. Please do your own due diligence. The study is intended as a basis of discussion and a possible guideline for those already purchasing or considering purchasing silver and /or gold.

DMac
18th June 2010, 01:05 PM
You go JQP!!!! Congrats!

MNeagle
18th June 2010, 01:05 PM
Wow, congratulations! You're even more famous now! :banrasta Happy dance for you & bringing GS-US publicity!!

k-os
18th June 2010, 02:05 PM
Way to go, John Q. Pubic!

I expect this will bring in some fresh meat.

Large Sarge
18th June 2010, 02:08 PM
yes Great Job!

nice to plug to the site also!!!

madfranks
18th June 2010, 02:08 PM
Awesome, and a great article to boot! Congrats!

sunshine05
18th June 2010, 02:37 PM
Wonderful!!! Congratulations! :)

Ponce
18th June 2010, 02:52 PM
DAMNNNNNNNNNNN HES MORE FAMOUS THAN ME ....... :oo-->

Hahahahahahahah congrat, very good article, can't wait to read part 2.

Ares
18th June 2010, 03:07 PM
Congrats :)

wildcard
18th June 2010, 03:10 PM
You stallion. More virgin minds to rape!

Quantum
18th June 2010, 06:31 PM
Good job...now the new members will be flooding in.

ximmy
18th June 2010, 06:36 PM
Congratulations! :) :) :)

Hugginator
18th June 2010, 06:51 PM
Congrats! Nicely done.

StackerKen
18th June 2010, 07:04 PM
Yep. Congrats...Good Work

Trinity
18th June 2010, 07:19 PM
What is this analysis reveals is that, over more than a century, there has not been a huge change in the purchasing power of gold and silver. The amount of production of gold and silver per capita is actually a little higher in 2010 than it was in 1903! This means that if there was enough gold and silver to be used in 1903 to the extent it was and in the manner it was (i.e., fractional reserve basis), the same could be true today!

That quote destroys the "there isn't enough Gold for it to be money these days" argument. I actually thought there wasn't enough myself. But no more.

madfranks
18th June 2010, 08:02 PM
What is this analysis reveals is that, over more than a century, there has not been a huge change in the purchasing power of gold and silver. The amount of production of gold and silver per capita is actually a little higher in 2010 than it was in 1903! This means that if there was enough gold and silver to be used in 1903 to the extent it was and in the manner it was (i.e., fractional reserve basis), the same could be true today!

That quote destroys the "there isn't enough Gold for it to be money these days" argument. I actually thought there wasn't enough myself. But no more.


Interestingly enough, it doesn't matter how much gold there is, it's "enough". Here's a little example: let's say that you have a population of 100 people and 100 oz of gold to service their economy. 100 ounces of gold is chasing the products produced by 100 people, and everyone considers this to be the natural "balance". One ounce of gold is worth the production of one person. Well a generation goes by and suddenly you have 200 people with 100 ounces of gold to service their economy. Some would say there's not enough gold to satisfy the monetary demands of the people, but that's not true. Now that you have 100 ounces of gold chasing the production of 200 people, one ounce of gold is now worth the production of two people. In other words, one half ounce of gold now has the purchasing power that one ounce had a generation earlier. The bonus is that while the population and production have grown, the gold has gotten relatively worth more since it's chasing more goods. The people are the ultimate winners as their money is now worth more than it was before, and everyone enjoys a higher standard of living in an economy which produces more goods for the people to use. Compare this with our economy today where inflation eats away the real economic growth, so that unless you can grow your productivity by the annual inflation rate, you will fall behind and not enjoy the surplus that your increased productivity is producing.

JohnQPublic
18th June 2010, 10:57 PM
What is this analysis reveals is that, over more than a century, there has not been a huge change in the purchasing power of gold and silver. The amount of production of gold and silver per capita is actually a little higher in 2010 than it was in 1903! This means that if there was enough gold and silver to be used in 1903 to the extent it was and in the manner it was (i.e., fractional reserve basis), the same could be true today!

That quote destroys the "there isn't enough Gold for it to be money these days" argument. I actually thought there wasn't enough myself. But no more.


Interestingly enough, it doesn't matter how much gold there is, it's "enough". Here's a little example: let's say that you have a population of 100 people and 100 oz of gold to service their economy. 100 ounces of gold is chasing the products produced by 100 people, and everyone considers this to be the natural "balance". One ounce of gold is worth the production of one person. Well a generation goes by and suddenly you have 200 people with 100 ounces of gold to service their economy. Some would say there's not enough gold to satisfy the monetary demands of the people, but that's not true. Now that you have 100 ounces of gold chasing the production of 200 people, one ounce of gold is now worth the production of two people. In other words, one half ounce of gold now has the purchasing power that one ounce had a generation earlier. The bonus is that while the population and production have grown, the gold has gotten relatively worth more since it's chasing more goods. The people are the ultimate winners as their money is now worth more than it was before, and everyone enjoys a higher standard of living in an economy which produces more goods for the people to use. Compare this with our economy today where inflation eats away the real economic growth, so that unless you can grow your productivity by the annual inflation rate, you will fall behind and not enjoy the surplus that your increased productivity is producing.


That is classic deflation! Great for the retirees, but not necassarily for the rest. The interesting thing, is that people make the "there is not enough gold and silver" argument, but apparently don't check it it is true. Of course, the current production rate is an important factor, but also the amount currently available at the start of a new currency is a factor, too. This I did not account for directly. It is especially an issue with silver.

JohnQPublic
18th June 2010, 10:59 PM
What is this analysis reveals is that, over more than a century, there has not been a huge change in the purchasing power of gold and silver. The amount of production of gold and silver per capita is actually a little higher in 2010 than it was in 1903! This means that if there was enough gold and silver to be used in 1903 to the extent it was and in the manner it was (i.e., fractional reserve basis), the same could be true today!

That quote destroys the "there isn't enough Gold for it to be money these days" argument. I actually thought there wasn't enough myself. But no more.


Believe me, I was surprised to when my analysis led to that conclusion. I was not expecting it; though the "silver quarter bought a gallon of gas in 1964, and still does today" argument implied it. That it may cost 113 ozt silver (or 113 grams gold) a month (for a typical family of 5- as though that exists today) was more than I was hoping for.

Trinity
19th June 2010, 05:47 AM
Now that you have 100 ounces of gold chasing the production of 200 people, one ounce of gold is now worth the production of two people. In other words, one half ounce of gold now has the purchasing power that one ounce had a generation earlier. The bonus is that while the population and production have grown, the gold has gotten relatively worth more since it's chasing more goods. The people are the ultimate winners as their money is now worth more than it was before, and everyone enjoys a higher standard of living in an economy which produces more goods for the people to use.

I don't think money that gains in value verses labor is a good thing either. It must be stable with labor.

madfranks
19th June 2010, 06:15 AM
Now that you have 100 ounces of gold chasing the production of 200 people, one ounce of gold is now worth the production of two people. In other words, one half ounce of gold now has the purchasing power that one ounce had a generation earlier. The bonus is that while the population and production have grown, the gold has gotten relatively worth more since it's chasing more goods. The people are the ultimate winners as their money is now worth more than it was before, and everyone enjoys a higher standard of living in an economy which produces more goods for the people to use.

I don't think money that gains in value verses labor is a good thing either. It must be stable with labor.


Well, the example I made up was purely hypothetical and simply meant to show how any amount of gold could service an economy. Let's take my example to the next level. As that economy grew from 100 to 200 people, they realized that their gold was chasing more goods and was becoming more valuable. Since the gold was becoming more valuable, there was more incentive to mine more of it. More members of this economy change professions and start mining gold because it's more lucrative. The "balance" that we started with of 100 oz of gold to service the economy of 100 people will not be returned until the miners produce another 100 oz of gold so there will be 200 oz of gold to service the economy of 200 people. This equilibrium happens naturally in a free market.

crazychicken
19th June 2010, 06:26 AM
JQP--
Very informative article.
Thank you!
CC

Trinity
19th June 2010, 07:54 AM
Well, the example I made up was purely hypothetical and simply meant to show how any amount of gold could service an economy. Let's take my example to the next level. As that economy grew from 100 to 200 people, they realized that their gold was chasing more goods and was becoming more valuable. Since the gold was becoming more valuable, there was more incentive to mine more of it. More members of this economy change professions and start mining gold because it's more lucrative. The "balance" that we started with of 100 oz of gold to service the economy of 100 people will not be returned until the miners produce another 100 oz of gold so there will be 200 oz of gold to service the economy of 200 people. This equilibrium happens naturally in a free market.

I like that.

General of Darkness
19th June 2010, 08:01 AM
Well Done.

beefsteak
19th June 2010, 08:12 AM
Kudos, JQP!!

JohnQPublic
31st August 2010, 12:29 PM
Can You Live on Gold and Silver? (http://www.preciousmetalsmonthly.com/2010/10.07/index.htm#djia)
by John Q. Public

The second part was published in July. Follow the above link (it is hard to bring the tables over).

Joe King
31st August 2010, 12:37 PM
What is this analysis reveals is that, over more than a century, there has not been a huge change in the purchasing power of gold and silver. The amount of production of gold and silver per capita is actually a little higher in 2010 than it was in 1903! This means that if there was enough gold and silver to be used in 1903 to the extent it was and in the manner it was (i.e., fractional reserve basis), the same could be true today!

That quote destroys the "there isn't enough Gold for it to be money these days" argument. I actually thought there wasn't enough myself. But no more.


Interestingly enough, it doesn't matter how much gold there is, it's "enough". Here's a little example: let's say that you have a population of 100 people and 100 oz of gold to service their economy. 100 ounces of gold is chasing the products produced by 100 people, and everyone considers this to be the natural "balance". One ounce of gold is worth the production of one person. Well a generation goes by and suddenly you have 200 people with 100 ounces of gold to service their economy. Some would say there's not enough gold to satisfy the monetary demands of the people, but that's not true. Now that you have 100 ounces of gold chasing the production of 200 people, one ounce of gold is now worth the production of two people. In other words, one half ounce of gold now has the purchasing power that one ounce had a generation earlier. The bonus is that while the population and production have grown, the gold has gotten relatively worth more since it's chasing more goods. The people are the ultimate winners as their money is now worth more than it was before, and everyone enjoys a higher standard of living in an economy which produces more goods for the people to use. Compare this with our economy today where inflation eats away the real economic growth, so that unless you can grow your productivity by the annual inflation rate, you will fall behind and not enjoy the surplus that your increased productivity is producing.
Increased purchasing power over time sounds great to me.
Lets make it happen! :)

Oh, and congrats on the article, JQP! You done real good.