>i too would like to know more about the implications of bdanons claims that gold can be (and is) manufactured.
Then today we print paper; tomorrow we print gold. Here's the little I get when trying to put the pieces together:
>Gold is valuable because it is believed to be scarce.
>Fiat is valuable because it is believed to be valuable.
>A unique tech advantage to produce material amounts of cheap and bountiful gold undermines the idea of gold being scarce - and therefore valuable - in the public's mind.
>It makes no sense to me why a purported agent of a government who has exclusive access to such tech would post about the tech. What makes the tech valuable is that no one suspects gold can be created. Why flaunt this unless you play the Q-disinfo-and/or-message-not-meant-for-anons?
>If the public comes to believe gold is no longer as scarce as it once was the confidence in it will fall out, just like if they come to believe fiat is worthless.
>Central banks continue to materially increase their gold holdings.
>Countries are seeking to repatriate their foreign held gold holdings (e.g. Poland).
>$2000 > 1oz of gold fixed = 1.79T in paper notes in circulation (per FED at DEC 4, 2019) = 28,000tons of AU required to cover notes in circulation. US believed to have ~8k in gold reserves.
>Is it logical/plausible to believe 20,000tons of gold, or some combo of gold/silver/platinum/palladium, will just materialize? Seems like someone might start asking the questions which would lead to the public no longer believing gold was as scarce as they thought.
>Trump's using the FED's credit card to juice the economy. Maybe he's going to take them for all their worth and then switch over / restructure?