Although it’s likely BRICS nations are discussing creating a new currency, no agreement has been reached. Policy makers are denying a gold-backed currency is soon to be launched.
1790-1932, the U.S. dollar read "Payable on demand for gold." Pretty simple, and damn honest. Anything less is subterfuge. When you start reading "BRICS contemplate gold-backed crypto," don't think BRIC, think CROC, because that is what it is. Zimbabwe pretended it had created a "gold-backed crypto"- how did that work out? (Answer: currency still worth 2/10 of a penny.) The tangled web weavers weave infinitely complex webs, but return to a gold standard would be as easy as changing the so called "security strip" from Mylar(!) to hologrammed gold foil (!!!). Demand it!
The privately owned central banks are at the heart of the problem: all of the evils predicted by Andrew Jackson have come true, and he never dreamed of their ultimate heresy: CBDC with which to completely imprison everyone a digital Gulag.And at all costs, keep things as complicated as possible. Computer this to the respected dollar 1790-1933: "payable on demand for gold." The BRICS, like Zimbabwe, like to show a picture of a gold coin in hyping their CBDC- but nowhere will you find anything about convertibility, about a real store of value.(The Zimbabwe currency, BTW is still worth 2/10ths of a penny). Only those who have gone through a baptism of fire, such as the soldiers who fought in the Revolution, have what it takes to demand a true gold-backed currency, which would be as simple as replacing the jokingly called (Mylar(!) "security strip" with one that was: made of hologrammed gold foil, or an alloy.
No government wants its currency to be tied to gold. Such a tie would limit the government's freedom to create money out of nothing for itself. Even the endorsement of such a currency would be an embarrassment, because it would draw attention to the weakness of the government's own currency. For this reason alone, it is unlikely that any gold-backed currency, national or international, will be created.
A quite distinct issue is that of a central bank (as an arm of its government) holding gold as part of its foreign-currency reserves. In fact, it makes sense to hold gold as the major part of such reserves: To the extent that reserves are held as gold, the bank is not subsidizing the dilution of foreign governments' currencies.
Unless it can be used to bypass sanctions and is the (even temporary) solution for a monopolistic currency that is being weaponized against all who even question its authority. The Dollar-to-infinity is good for one country, the United States. The rest of the world suffers under it.
Denial and repudiation of this very plan suggests it indeed is very much on the table. Soon.
1790-1932, the U.S. dollar read "Payable on demand for gold." Pretty simple, and damn honest. Anything less is subterfuge. When you start reading "BRICS contemplate gold-backed crypto," don't think BRIC, think CROC, because that is what it is. Zimbabwe pretended it had created a "gold-backed crypto"- how did that work out? (Answer: currency still worth 2/10 of a penny.) The tangled web weavers weave infinitely complex webs, but return to a gold standard would be as easy as changing the so called "security strip" from Mylar(!) to hologrammed gold foil (!!!). Demand it!
The privately owned central banks are at the heart of the problem: all of the evils predicted by Andrew Jackson have come true, and he never dreamed of their ultimate heresy: CBDC with which to completely imprison everyone a digital Gulag.And at all costs, keep things as complicated as possible. Computer this to the respected dollar 1790-1933: "payable on demand for gold." The BRICS, like Zimbabwe, like to show a picture of a gold coin in hyping their CBDC- but nowhere will you find anything about convertibility, about a real store of value.(The Zimbabwe currency, BTW is still worth 2/10ths of a penny). Only those who have gone through a baptism of fire, such as the soldiers who fought in the Revolution, have what it takes to demand a true gold-backed currency, which would be as simple as replacing the jokingly called (Mylar(!) "security strip" with one that was: made of hologrammed gold foil, or an alloy.
No government wants its currency to be tied to gold. Such a tie would limit the government's freedom to create money out of nothing for itself. Even the endorsement of such a currency would be an embarrassment, because it would draw attention to the weakness of the government's own currency. For this reason alone, it is unlikely that any gold-backed currency, national or international, will be created.
A quite distinct issue is that of a central bank (as an arm of its government) holding gold as part of its foreign-currency reserves. In fact, it makes sense to hold gold as the major part of such reserves: To the extent that reserves are held as gold, the bank is not subsidizing the dilution of foreign governments' currencies.
I agree. That is why gold is Plan B for central banks, not A. https://www.gainesvillecoins.com/blog/europe-preparing-gold-standard-part-2
Unless it can be used to bypass sanctions and is the (even temporary) solution for a monopolistic currency that is being weaponized against all who even question its authority. The Dollar-to-infinity is good for one country, the United States. The rest of the world suffers under it.
Obviously a HUGE VERY complex undertaking requiring LOTS of effort over some time.
Here is a treatise on the subject of keen interest.
https://www.goldmoney.com/research/the-bell-tolls-for-fiat?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email