Drivers Representation - We are no longer VOICELESS

No, air and water are necessities. Humans have survived for eons without oil.

 

quote, Myself and Mr Dan Little from MO spoke to Todd Spencer directly over this issue and more. Transparency and "full" payment of FSC is one HOT ISSUE taking place under the OOIDA rooftop. They have the power to take those issues we as drivers are facing to a White house/congress level. We do not. "YET".

careful, limiting the subject of transparency is just wrong until there is complete transparency in what is being paid for the load there will just be more scamming and manipulation of the charges, I want to see what the customers are actually paying to move their freight, I am not asking for price regulation I just want t see the price and what is being skimmed off that way if I choose to take a load that the broker(s) have taken more than their fair share I have nothing to complain about, I am betting few people would choose to take freight that has 40 or 50% skimmed off it so with transparency honest negotiations will take place!

people need to focus on much more that is wrong in this industry and get it all fixed, not go at this piecemeal, lets get this right the FIRST time

 

An interesting response. Just what, exactly, do you consider to be "...all the misinformation contained in this post"? Historic gold pricing? Subsidies? Tariffs? I am more than willing and able to support my assertions if necessary.

 

Providing a subsidy does not "set the price" of any commodity. If the government did set the price, there would be no need for any of these commodities to trade in open markets, they all do. The price of sugar has been below $10 and as high as $18 in the past two years. How can a price, which is set by the government fluctuate like that? Did the government do it? or did the open market?

No, the value of a Dollar was set at particular amount of gold, the last peg being $42.22 per ounce in 1975.

If you know of price gouging you should report it.

I think I shot holes in most of your post.

 

Remove the restrictions on sugar importation and what would the price be? As long as the government is keeping out "cheap" sugar and providing subsidies to sugar farmers, they are setting a de-facto minimum price. Hardly a "free market." I'm not saying that this is a bad thing. I'm simply stating that it is a myth that we have a "Free Market" economy in the United States. Personally, I think protectionism is a good thing. When we had a strongly protectionist government (as I stated previously, into the middle of the 20th century), the value of our dollar was relatively stable in relation to the price of gold.

The value of the dollar was set at a particular price, and that price would buy that one troy ounce of gold. The price of gold was set, I believe, only four times during the history of the US until Nixon took us off the gold standard in 1971. From 1879 through 1933 that price was just under $21 per troy ounce. Your $21 dollars in US currency could be exchanged for one troy ounce of gold (plus a little), and the dollar had an actual value of about 1/21st of an ounce of gold. This, as I said previously, gave relative stability to our currency.

It took until the mid-70's for the price of gold to exceed $50 (and for the value of the dollar to decline to 1/50th of an ounce of gold, by which it was no longer backed). In the short few years following that disaster, gold rose to approximately $800 per ounce. It fell back to the mid $300's before the current insanity which has driven it back up above $900. Does that mean that gold is "worth" more, or that the dollar is worth less? It is instructive to note that a given amount of gold has, pretty much throughout modern history, been exchangeable for about the same amount of goods or services, noting exceptions in times of scarcity.

I believe that is what I am doing.

If you say so, Bubbie.

 

You have gone from stating that our government sets the price to now saying that our government sets a de-facto minimum price.

The government of the United States did not set the price of gold, just the equivalent amount of gold a dollar would be worth.

There isn't enough gold in the world to sustain 1 year of U.S. economic activity, so you can forget the gold standard.

http://www.measuringworth.com/datasets/usgdp/result.php

 

A distinction without difference. While the government might not set the maximum price, setting a de-facto minimum price is still setting a price. Can you import sugar for a dollar a ton if it is being offered to you for that price on the "Free Market"? Nope. It's against the law. Therefore, the government has set a de-facto minimum price.

On the contrary, the US Federal Government did, in fact, set the price of gold; for example, via the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 the price was set at $35 per ounce. Of course, one is always free to pay more than fair value if one is of a mind to do so. You are free, for example, to pay $200 per pound for the sugar you wish to import.

At this point in American history, I am not advocating a return to the gold standard. Our wealth has been stolen. The dollar is worthless, and all of what was once America's gold is in the possession of the Federal Reserve Bank -- a privately-owned corporation. US currency is nothing but paper backed by the ability (and even requirement) to print more paper, with the inevitable result being rampant inflation.

I would, however, suggest that whatever government arises from the ashes of this nation should establish a gold and silver standard for their currency. Much like the one required by the US Constitution.

 

The Fed is not privately owned.

How exactly do you suppose we return to a gold or silver backed Dollar?

Take the value of all gold ever mined on Earth, add the total value of all silver ever mined on Earth, add them together and what do you get?

Less than 1 years economic output for the United States.

So please stop talking about gold and silver standards.

We'd be better off basing our currency on crabgrass.

 

I would link you to any number of sites which give the lie to that assertion, but I fear to do so would be in vain. You can look it up if you like.

Actually, as I said in my previous reply, I do NOT suppose that the United States will ever return to a bimetal standard. Indeed, it is my firm belief that the USofA will, for the rest of its life, use fiat currency. I just don't anticipate it having much of a life left.

That being said, however, to talk about returning to a gold or bimetal standard at the current devalued state of the US Dollar, where gold costs some $912, is indeed a silly proposition as, which you yourself mentioned, there isn't enough gold and silver on the planet -- even allowing for that which hasn't been mined yet. But who says that $912 is an equitable price for gold? It used to be stable at around $18 -- in fact, it was stable at that price for a very long time. Eliminate inflation (which fiat currency promotes) by eliminating worthless privately-owned paper currency (as the US Constitution mandates, remember) and return to a reasonable value for gold, worldwide, of about $20 per ounce. Yes, this is about .022 cents per paper dollar, but that's what hyperinflation has done to our currency over time. Gold itself still buys the same amount of goods and services, more or less, as it always has, as I mentioned before. What is essential is that the Public Money must have an intrinsic value equal to the face value of said currency. At last glance, grabgrass futures look dismal.

But this is not something I advocate for the US. The next government, yes.