Winston Churchill on the Gold-Standard

Kensington

Active member
Joined
Jun 14, 2009
Messages
149
Winston Churchill, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, reintroduced the gold-standard in 1925. In 1932, Churchill testified the following before the House of Commons:

When I was moved by many arguments and forces in 1925 to return to the gold standard, I was assured by the highest experts, and our experts are men of great ability and of indisputable integrity and sincerity, that we were anchoring ourselves to reality and stability, and I accepted their advice. I take for myself and my colleagues of other days whatever degree of blame and burden for having accepted their advice. But what happened ? We have had no reality, no stability. The price of gold has risen since then by more than 70 per cent. That is as if a 12-inch foot rule had been stretched to 19 or 20 inches, as if the pound avoirdupois had suddenly become 23 or 24 ounces instead of 16. Look at what this has meant to everybody who has been compelled to execute their contracts upon this irrationally enhanced scale. Look at the gross unfairness of such distortion to all producers of new wealth, and to all that labour and science and enterprise can give us. Look at the enormously increased volume of commodities which have to be created in order to pay off the same mortgage debt or loan. Minor fluctuation might well be ignored, but I say quite seriously that this monetary convulsion has now reached a pitch where I am persuaded that the producers of new wealth will not tolerate indefinitely so hideous an oppression. . . . I therefore point to this evil, and to the search for the method's of remedying it as the first, second and third of all the problems which should command and rivet our thoughts.
So, we can either listen to Ron Paul and the other 'experts' on the matter or we can look at the facts. Churchill listened to the 'experts' and reintroduced it. He saw its fundamental flaws first hand. Can the Austrian-supporters tell me why things would be different this time?
 


Cassandra Syndrome

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
16,885
Winston Churchill, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, reintroduced the gold-standard in 1925. In 1932, Churchill testified the following before the House of Commons:



So, we can either listen to Ron Paul and the other 'experts' on the matter or we can look at the facts. Churchill listened to the 'experts' and reintroduced it. He saw its fundamental flaws first hand. Can the Austrian-supporters tell me why things would be different this time?
The gold standard was reintroduced in 1925 because in 1914 it was suspended to fund World War 1 by printing Fiat currency. It bankrupted Britian. Its not Gold's fault. Furthermore the fractional reserve system went out of control in the late 20s leading to a credit crunch that caused the Great Depression I. Leaving the Gold Standard and letting that fool John WAYWARD Keynes go on his 1930s bender prolonged the Depression which was only solved when the contrived World War 2 happened.

Gold rules. Austrian School of Economics is the only way. Ron Paul for President.
 

Kensington

Active member
Joined
Jun 14, 2009
Messages
149
The gold standard was reintroduced in 1925 because in 1914 it was suspended to fund World War 1 by printing Fiat currency. It bankrupted Britian. Its not Gold's fault.
I wouldn't blame an inanimate mineral either. I do blame the contraction of the money supply by the introduction of a standard based on gold.

Gold rules. Austrian School of Economics is the only way. Ron Paul for President.
It's a pity that no one was there to shout that at Winston Churchill. It might have convinced him.
 

20000miles

Active member
Joined
Aug 14, 2008
Messages
257
Website
www.irishliberty.wordpress.com
Cassandra is pretty much spot on. The gold standard was suspended because some imperial powers wanted a killfest - fiat money made that possible. Had the UK returned to the gold standard in the 1920s at a realistic price parity there would have been no need for mass unemployment, or for a "revolutionary" new economics to explain it.
 

Kensington

Active member
Joined
Jun 14, 2009
Messages
149
So, you are suggesting that Britain could not have won World War 2. They did not have the money to pay for it so, therefore, should they have just acquiesced to Germany?

Now i, being no expert (like poor Churchill), may interject, ' but why should Britain give up? It has the men to fight. it has the ability to build the weaponry to stand up to them. Now, i know it has not got enough gold to pay for it, but you do not build guns and ships out of gold. let us abandon Gold as our money and replace it with something that is more abundant.'
 

Aj1990

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
75
Why not a combination of Platinum,Gold,Silver,Copper,Nickle?
 

Kensington

Active member
Joined
Jun 14, 2009
Messages
149
That is not all you are saying. You are suggesting that it is really difficult to undertake any great economic undertaking on a gold standard, even if we have the skills and resources to do so.
 

seenitallb4

Active member
Joined
Apr 28, 2009
Messages
197
I'm suggesting it's really difficult to fight wars while on a gold standard.
In the middle of an economic crisis that was caused by the constant inflation of bubbles, the erosion of savings, the creation of fake wealth that existed only on paper and the belief in the Greenspan put, it is amusing to me that people still defend the economic status quo. So many think that they can be saved from the business cycle and that printing money and encouraging borrowing will somehow fix it all- in fact they are only postponing the inevitable decline of the dollar and the end of the American empire.
 

Captain Con O'Sullivan

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2009
Messages
985
Kensington
So, you are suggesting that Britain could not have won World War 2. They did not have the money to pay for it so, therefore, should they have just acquiesced to Germany?
Britain was three weeks from utter bankruptcy at one point in the first year of the war. Lord Halifax was a member of Churchill's cabinet and at the first cabinet meeting is on public record as having suggested that Britain should 'come to terms' with Germany. IE, surrender.

WW11 finished off the British Empire. In order to get 22 destroyers from the US (who behaved like loansharks) Britain had to hand over naval bases all over the world to the Americans. When the 22 destroyers arrived 8 of them were subsequently found to be useful only for scrap.

Britain only finished paying off its bill to the US from WW11 three years ago. Ever since WW11 Britain has been nothin but a financial colony of the United States in Europe. This is known in international diplomatic terms as the 'special relationship'.

Britain didn't win WW11. The United States did. Or to be more precise the Federal Reserve did.

If you want to check anything I've said my source is Jenkins' 'Churchill'. Its all in there and based on state papers.
 

Cassandra Syndrome

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
16,885
So, you are suggesting that Britain could not have won World War 2. They did not have the money to pay for it so, therefore, should they have just acquiesced to Germany?

Now i, being no expert (like poor Churchill), may interject, ' but why should Britain give up? It has the men to fight. it has the ability to build the weaponry to stand up to them. Now, i know it has not got enough gold to pay for it, but you do not build guns and ships out of gold. let us abandon Gold as our money and replace it with something that is more abundant.'
Ever wonder how the Nazis got democratically elected to power?. In 1928 they polled 2.6% in 1928. By 1932 they polled 37.4%.
 

Kensington

Active member
Joined
Jun 14, 2009
Messages
149
Any unwanted economic undertaking, yes.
If, instead of a war, the British had decided to spend as much on education, infrastructural development, healthcare and housing, they could not have done so either, even if they had the resources and people to do so. All because of the supply of a metal which has little use in and of itself.

Britain didn't win WW11. The United States did. Or to be more precise the Federal Reserve did.
OK, Britain helped win World War 1.


Ever wonder how the Nazis got democratically elected to power?
Well, yes.
 

Cassandra Syndrome

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
16,885
If, instead of a war, the British had decided to spend as much on education, infrastructural development, healthcare and housing, they could not have done so either, even if they had the resources and people to do so. All because of the supply of a metal which has little use in and of itself.



OK, Britain helped win World War 1.




Well, yes.
Have you thought about it? 2.6% to 37.4% within 4 years? Could you imagine the PDs achieving that?
 

flamez911

Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
27

Cassandra Syndrome

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
16,885
Hitler got elected, therefore RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT
Yeah National Socialism and Libertarianism are on the exact same spot on the political spectrum.
 

merle haggard

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2005
Messages
5,434
So, you are suggesting that Britain could not have won World War 2. They did not have the money to pay for it so, therefore, should they have just acquiesced to Germany?
but they didnt win it . Russia and and a later US intervention did . Had these infinitely more powerful and resourced players not entered the fray then Britian would have simply been another nazi colony . Churchill would hav been shvelling slack into some electricity generator outside dresden .
Now i, being no expert (like poor Churchill), may interject, ' but why should Britain give up? It has the men to fight. it has the ability to build the weaponry to stand up to them. Now, i know it has not got enough gold to pay for it, but you do not build guns and ships out of gold. let us abandon Gold as our money and replace it with something that is more abundant.
It had the men to - reluctantly - fight the sideshows elsewhere when Germany was entangled in the real war on the eastern front . And the americans donated them the ships on lend and lease .
 

merle haggard

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2005
Messages
5,434
Yeah National Socialism and Libertarianism are on the exact same spot on the political spectrum.

national socialism was sponsored by the captains of industry in order to wipe out the bonds of social cohesion and working class solidarity which made the dream of libertarian capitalist consumerism and social darwinianism impossible in germany . The science of eugenics as mode of explaining away the abhorent imbalances regarding social progress was right up the libertarians street . National socialism is simply the precursor to libertarianism , the iron fist to put the scum - the people - in their place and permit the libertarian capitalist superman to thrive in his sea of social darwinianism . Libertarianisms founder De Sade would have been right at home as a commander in auschwitz . The shared hatred of humanity and the desire to break a peoples will to stand together in social solidarity is the nazis and the libertarians unmistakable hallmark . The nazis were simply the libertarians attack dogs .
 

Cassandra Syndrome

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
16,885
national socialism was sponsored by the captains of industry in order to wipe out the bonds of social cohesion and working class solidarity which made the dream of libertarian capitalist consumerism and social darwinianism impossible in germany . The science of eugenics as mode of explaining away the abhorent imbalances regarding social progress was right up the libertarians street . National socialism is simply the precursor to libertarianism , the iron fist to put the scum - the people - in their place and permit the libertarian capitalist superman to thrive in his sea of social darwinianism . Libertarianisms founder De Sade would have been right at home as a commander in auschwitz . The shared hatred of humanity and the desire to break a peoples will to stand together in social solidarity is the nazis and the libertarians unmistakable hallmark . The nazis were simply the libertarians attack dogs .
Is that you Goebbels?
Have you read up on John Stuart Mill? During the 19th century he started the cause for women's suffrage and equal rights. He was also very good to us Irish. He is considered the father of the libertarian movement. De Sade was a twisted pervert for God's sake.
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top