but from a risk analysis perspective, gold isn't money if there is a floating exchange rate.
I'm no economist or mathematician, but I have noticed that the USDollar floats on the international foreign exchange markets in reference to other sovereign currencies. It also floats on the "commodity" ""markets."" But you might consider those special cases that don't apply to in-country transactions to which you were referring.
Today, you are taking a risk position by saving money in gold - the risk that your liabilities denominated in local currency cannot be met if the price of the gold goes the wrong direction. (Of course, there is always the chance that gold rises to $1400, and you can more than meet the tax liability; but if there is risk & reward, its not money, its an asset).
Yes, but I'm also taking a risk saving my labor/energy in dollars, or anything else. Currently, I'm operating under the assumption that there is MORE risk in saving in USD's than in gold or silver, and that risk is rising every year.
Gold sales people like to say "gold is the one true money" or some such. It is just a sales pitch.
Yes, but so is "Backed by the full faith and credit of the US government." I hear them all as sales pitches and I have to do some due diligence and take some risks to decide where to put my savings. I've gotten real shaky on government sales pitches.
In the last few decades in the US things have been so stable we've been lulled into complacency when it comes to money, savings, and survival in general. "The next 20 years are going to be be very different than the last 20 years" and one way that will be evidenced is in volatility, unpredictability, broken contracts and promises, and so forth. It's happened in other countries that currency undergoes swift declines in value, even to the point of retail shops having to change prices multiple times each day, post prices in multiple forms of payment (eg. national currency, acceptable foreign currencies, gold and silver) and rely on "black marketeers" outside the store or in the neighborhood to facilitate shoppers' purchases by swapping what the shoppers have to buy with for what is acceptable to the retail shop and/or government. We are at a growing risk of those kinds of conditions in the OECD/West.
I like Mike Maloney's distinction: gold and silver are money; dollars (and Yen, Yuan, Pounds, Euros) are currency. In fact, isn't that the US Constitution's view: only gold and silver can be money? I also like thinkers like Ron Paul and Martin Armstrong who would agree, I think, that letting government or a private central bank decide what is money gives them tyrannical control over the people. Even Rothschild, who was in favor of he and his cronies being able to decide what is money and be the issuer thereof said something like, "Give me control of a nation's money supply and I care not who makes the laws." Like Ron Paul would say, "If the USDollar is so superior, what harm could come from allowing it to compete with other forms of 'money'? Do away with legal tender laws and let the people and the markets decide what kind of payments and money they prefer and are willing to transact in." Of course, that would be the death knell for any fiat currency, so it will not be allowed by our owners.
Maybe in the future we'll get a chance to try the "freegold" system, in which currency and gold (and silver) float against each other. There have been many comments about "getting the price of gold right." Rickards points out that Britain in 1925 went back on the gold standard but at a price that was drastically too low and led to a punishing deflation. Personally, I wouldn't want to be the one charged with getting the price of gold "right" in a gold standard monetary system. However, it would be much wiser and easier, it seems to me, if we could adjust the price (gold/currency ratio) from time to time instead of stitching ourselves into a straightjacket for all time. Freegold! This way the paper currency would always have gold/silver backing (and be Constitutional) but minor adjustments could be made to accomodate a growing (or shrinking) economy. Pass a law stating that the gold/currency ratio could only be changed +/- 3% per year unless approved in a national referendum. 3% would normally be enough, but if an emergency arose (war, most likely) or some unexpected set of circumstances developed, let the leaders make their case to the people and let the people decide. It's THEIR money after all. And that would be a great way for the people to have the power to veto going to war: voting no on a big change in the gold/currency ratio would seriously restrict the funds available with which to wage a war. And if "we the people" didn't like the changes in the gold/currency ratio, we could convert our paper currency into gold/silver, or exchange our gold/silver for paper currency. There would only be a little wiggle room in the government or banks fiddling with the gold/currency ratio because the people would be free to move their savings from one to the other thereby negating any significant attempts by the government or banks to game the system.
Of course, all of that is pie in the sky because our owners won't allow any of these things because they benefit tremendously from the way things are, and because "we the people" aren't paying enough attention to demand what's in our own best interests. However, a massive collapse of the current monetary system would provide a "teachable moment" and a brief window of opportunity to do something different and better… Oh look! Here comes a massive collapse of the monetary system now.
"Welcome to the Hunger Games. And may the odds be ever in your favor."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWPWHU8x6kE