Paul Brodsky has been reading FOFOA for some time. From memory his asset management firm's website has used quotes from FOFOA et al. to help outline their perspective. I think they have reposted material on their site. There are a couple of such firms whose sites I have looked at who do. Altus Capital is another one.
He's not calling for $10k/oz gold, he's using that figure as an example, but you are right, a peg won't work.
Boefke wrote: By raising the price to $10.000 and print the money to buy the gold it would be a clever way to get your hands on the gold.
On whose gold? Who do you think would be selling to Uncle Sam at that price, bearing in mind that the dollars being paid out would have less value than $10k today?
A few weak hands holding only chicken feed, and even they would quickly come to regret it.
Boefke wrote:But by devaluating the $ as much as stated above, wouldn't it trigger a massive $-dump worldwide and a grasp for every physical gold available on the planet? And a hyper inflationary coming sooner than later? It's better than stay and sit on the worthless $'s though.
Pretty much, but again the question:
who would be making their physical available at this rate?
It seems obvious to me that there can be no successful repricing of gold to any higher level without the rate floating. It cannot be fixed/pegged.
I had an exchange with a high profile gold commentator recently, asking him exactly how his proposed peg of the dollar to gold would function. His response was ridiculous. But he is taken very seriously by the gold community.
Just because someone has a profile, doesn't mean they actually know more than you. If their proposals don't make sense to you, it is not necessarily that you are not capable of understanding - it is quite possible that it just doesn't make sense. Why are these commentators even publicly commenting? Business promotion purposes for some. For others they have to publish opinion regularly, which can be challenging when you have nothing new to say. At the end of the day they are all just people, and they all have their mental baggage acting as a filter on their perceptions... Brodsky did admit straight up that
he has been trading bonds for 20 years, which is ample opportunity to start believing one's assumptions, so he would face quite an effort to ditch the thinking that had been his life for so long and assess other views for a more all-encompassing perspective. It can be done, but it takes a certain sort of ruthlessness with oneself. FOFOA has the perspective that makes that sort of effort worthwhile though
.
In my opinion (and it's only an opinion) very, very few have grasped the perspective with which to understand the monetary system and the fundamental role of gold (past, present and future) to that system.
This is why they supply confusing, sometimes contradictory and generally ambiguous commentary and analysis. Their imagination is restrained by their baggage.
They're simply people, just like you and I.
