Unemployment. Do the Math.

[tponetom]

Unemployment! Let’s do the arithmetic!


The unemployment figures comes from the World Almanac, 2010 version.


From 1950 to 1985, in five year increments: 5.9 % unemployment.
From 1986 to 1997, in each annual year: 6.0 % “
From 1998 to 2008, in each annual year: 5.8 % “


In the year 2009, it was 9.3. That was an increase of 3.5 %. I did not use that one in the above


Would it be reasonable to say that we have a static unemployment of nearly 6.0 %?
Today it is around 8.5. That is 2.5 % higher than the average.


Certainly any increase over the average is not very good for the economy.


BUT, I have never heard of practically anyone, candidates, reporters and especially, the politicians in general, who dared to say, “the sky is not falling, although a few pieces are.”


I was in the job market doing many of those years. In 1980 to 83, when I began thinking about retiring. the unemployment figure hung around the 7.0+ and the economy slowed down quite a bit.


Today, 8.5 is not acceptable but I believe it is more of a political hammer for both sides.
3.5 hurts many people, most of whom are poor.


Neither side has a magic wand. That, you can bet on!

[Papasito]

On the subject of unemployment, social security and welfare, I recently saw this email floating around from a retired Korean war vet to his family [[keep in mind he's in his late 70's, hence the grammar issues and reference to old-time crooks and whatnot) :

Happy 2sday, just reviewing the cost of living and our income. Just a few months before the SS increase of 14 WHOLE dollars a month. Govt cut our food monies by 3 dollars, then when the increased SS came, Govt cut our food monies by another 6 dollars.

6 plus 3 = 9 dollars. Now lets see so my increase of 14 bucks a month, minus the 9 dollars, they reduced me on, makes my TOTAL INCREASE IN THE COST OF LIVING PER MONTH [[according to the present government administration), a whopping increase of 5 dollars.

Oh, thank you sooo much for the 5 dollars, will buy a loaf of bread and 1.50 worth of lunch meat. That's about 4 to 5 slices of lunch meat.
OOps, cancel that 5 bucks, gas just went from 3.25 to 3.70 a gallon. I think I have just taken a financial loss. But the politicians don't have to worry, they buy their gasoline with the people tax monies.

And to think , they arrested Al Capone, for not paying taxes on his stealing a million here, and a million there, a mere pittance!!

America needs an investigative, super LEGAL, team of crimefighters, to pop some of these illegal crooked politicians in prison. THAT would scare many of the rest, and maybe, just maybe, they could run this country for less, and start building a financial storehouse to keep the money that would be saved in it.

When we look at how the retired have taken it in the shorts over the last 4 years, with the suspension of cost of living increases in Social Security benefits, the reduction of medicine coverage and restrictions of operations and procedures through Medicaid, it's amazing that the politically bias AARP continues to vote Democrat... even against the best interest of the people they represent.

[Papasito]

The United States has entered a "Death Spiral", where Government Revenue Consumers are outnumbering Government Revenue Producers.


11 states with more people on welfare than employed

Last month, the Senate Budget Committee reports that in fiscal year 2011, between food stamps, housing support, child care, Medicaid and other benefits, the average U.S. household below the poverty line received $168.00 a day in government support. What’s the problem with that much support? Well, the median household income in America is just over $50,000, which averages out to $137.13 a day. To put it another way, being on welfare now pays the equivalent of $30.00 an hour for a 40-hour week, while the average job pays $25.00 an hour.

Obama & recent Democrat talking points try to explain there is a "paying for" problem and denies there is a "spending problem".

Ever think that if the 8 million people that have left the workforce since 2008 were employed, the taxes they would be paying would help with the "paying for" problem?

“since Obama stepped into office, 7.5 million people have left the workforce,” IBD added. Almost all of those folks are still out there without a job.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfer...king-straight/

.....the Labor Department’s household survey, which determines the unemployment rate, found that the number of jobs plummeted last month by 195,000. That is why the U3 unemployment rate rose again, to 8.3%. It was the establishment survey of businesses that claimed the economy created 163,000, not 172,000, net new jobs last month. But that number is heavily influenced by seasonal adjustments that can be outdated, and by estimates not counts of jobs created by new businesses. It is inconsistent with the fact the Labor Dept. also reported on Friday that 150,000 left the workforce last month.

The country is headed in a bad direction. Jobs are scarce, wages are low. Government spending is high, the costs for energy are high. Taxes are high and getting higher. This is very eerily reminiscent of the Carter years, except then they didnt have each American family household burdened with $50,000+ in Government debt to pay for..
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...mas-policies-/

We are seeing the collapse of the nation right in front of our eyes, but people and politicians are too busy pointing at one another than fixing the imminent collapse.

[noise]

The United States has entered a "Death Spiral", where Government Revenue Consumers are outnumbering Government Revenue Producers.


11 states with more people on welfare than employed


Obama & recent Democrat talking points try to explain there is a "paying for" problem and denies there is a "spending problem".

Ever think that if the 8 million people that have left the workforce since 2008 were employed, the taxes they would be paying would help with the "paying for" problem?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfer...king-straight/


The country is headed in a bad direction. Jobs are scarce, wages are low. Government spending is high, the costs for energy are high. Taxes are high and getting higher. This is very eerily reminiscent of the Carter years, except then they didnt have each American family household burdened with $50,000+ in Government debt to pay for..
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...mas-policies-/

We are seeing the collapse of the nation right in front of our eyes, but people and politicians are too busy pointing at one another than fixing the imminent collapse.

Unbelievable, the garbage you spew.

http://www.politifact.com/texas/stat...people-welfar/

[gazhekwe]

If you wonder where the money went, check this out:

http://www.upworthy.com/9-out-of-10-...ing-fact-2?g=2

Maybe we need a new definition of welfare, and takers.

[Jimaz]

If you wonder where the money went, check this out:

http://www.upworthy.com/9-out-of-10-...ing-fact-2?g=2

Maybe we need a new definition of welfare, and takers.

Thank you for that.

I think the real problem is that disparity continues to grow without bound. When should that growth stop? At some point, increasing economic disparity becomes a disincentive to striving for a better life. I believe the poor are already in that demotivated state and their ranks are growing. At some point, further concentration of wealth must do more harm than good to a nation yet this idea is rarely discussed.

I don't see deservedness as a rational explanation for this unchecked, ever-growing concentration of wealth. The idea that anyone could ever truly earn what the 1% take is simply a conspicuous lie, a big lie, a really, really big lie.

[oladub]

If you wonder where the money went, check this out:

http://www.upworthy.com/9-out-of-10-...ing-fact-2?g=2

Maybe we need a new definition of welfare, and takers.

Thanks for that. Yup, the Bush/Obama years have been really good for the 1%. I thought the Bush bank bailouts were a great heads up. It let us know who sided with the bankers in Washington including Obama and McCain. A more recent heads up was when President Obama had the audacity to promote the TPP in his most recent State of the Union Speech. TPP should tone up flabby union workers who will have to work faster relative to Asian workers to keep their jobs while funneling more profits to the 1% either way.

[Zacha341]

Something akin to what's going on in Detroit in terms of tax revenues to a varying or less varying degree...

The United States has entered a "Death Spiral", where Government Revenue Consumers are outnumbering Government Revenue Producers.

[old guy]

The United States went into a death spiral when the Federal Reserve Act was enacted and I doubt we'll ever be able to pull out of it. Pick your poison, pick your politicians, but as long as the Fed is running the show, our time is limited.

[rb336]

what an utter load of rubbish. The US was a backwater country, just coming into its own when the Federal Reserve Act was passed in 1913. When were we, arguably, at our strongest? 40 some years later, when the top marginal tax rate was 90% and the unions were at their peak.

You are another candidate for remedial history, old guy

[old guy]

rb336, I have the utmost respect for many of your posts. But do a little research on the Fed. It's unsustainable for the masses. The panic of 1907 was what pulled the trigger and it was a scam.
I might be the most liberal, left wing person you've ever conversed with, but please, explain to me how the Fed can do what it's doing without taking over the government and its citizens without any retribution. They have absolute power and we as citizens have no recourse. They create money out of thin air which is a pretty good trick if you can pull it off.

[old guy]

P.S. there may have been times when it had merits, but in its present state, it's probably the greatest monetary pyramid schemes that's ever existed.

[rb336]

Old Guy, when a country controls its own currency, rather than having a gold standard or tying it to another currency, it controls its own destiny. It provides flexibility to the economy that is non-existent otherwise. That is why Japan didn't start having problems until their debt reached 250% of GDP, and why their problems are not as dire as those of Greece, Spain and Portugal are at 70-125% of GDP. It's why VZ's economy didn't recover because the monetary policy was directly controlled [[and tightened) by the central government, who tied it to the dollar and kept the supply of dollars artificially tight.

Show me something that is well documented, based on genuine research that shows that the Fed is harming the economy

[oladub]

Inflation Calculator
		If in		1913
		I purchased an item for $			$20
		then in		2013
		that same item would cost:			$465.21

The Federal Reserve was created by the banking cartel in 1913. One of its two original goals was to keep the value of money steady and the other was to maintain high employment. The dollar has since lost 95% of its value since and the worst depression in our history happened after, not before, the establishment of the Federal Reserve. The Fed, however, does a better more reliable job of enriching its mega-bank owners.

The Constitution requires that Congress, not a semi transparent, semi autonomous, bank owned consortium, coin and regulate the value of our money and that states can't "make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts". The point of these Constitutional requirements is to make it more difficult for any future government to debase its currency and thus steal the value of its money from citizens. There is some flexibility for government. Roosevelt, for instance, debased the value of the dollar relative to gold by one third to help pay for all his stuff. That action, at least, was Constitutional. The Fed prints away at will lending its printing press money to its owner banks to earn interest on. Its a pretty good racket the Fed reserves for itself.

Here is Sen. Bernie Sanders being told by Bernanke that he doesn't have to know which banks the Fed is lending its printing press money to.

Bernanke telling Rep. Greyson [[D) that he doesn't know what happened to $500B the Fed handed out to other countries.

Rb, yesterday you were sobbing over Comrade Chavez and today you are defending Goldman Sachs [[?). Just saying...

[ghettopalmetto]

Inflation Calculator
		If in		1913
		I purchased an item for $			$20
		then in		2013
		that same item would cost:			$465.21

The Federal Reserve was created by the banking cartel in 1913. One of its two original goals was to keep the value of money steady and the other was to maintain high employment. The dollar has since lost 95% of its value since and the worst depression in our history happened after, not before, the establishment of the Federal Reserve. The Fed, however, does a better more reliable job of enriching its mega-bank owners.

The Constitution requires that Congress, not a semi transparent, semi autonomous, bank owned consortium, coin and regulate the value of our money and that states can't "make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts". The point of these Constitutional requirements is to make it more difficult for any future government to debase its currency and thus steal the value of its money from citizens. There is some flexibility for government. Roosevelt, for instance, debased the value of the dollar relative to gold by one third to help pay for all his stuff. That action, at least, was Constitutional. The Fed prints away at will lending its printing press money to its owner banks to earn interest on. Its a pretty good racket the Fed reserves for itself.

Here is Sen. Bernie Sanders being told by Bernanke that he doesn't have to know which banks the Fed is lending its printing press money to.

Bernanke telling Rep. Greyson [[D) that he doesn't know what happened to $500B the Fed handed out to other countries.

Rb, yesterday you were sobbing over Comrade Chavez and today you are defending Goldman Sachs [[?). Just saying...

The median household also didn't earn $50,000 in 1920. But of course, since you're the numbers guy, you knew that.

You also fail to acknowledge that the Federal Reserve sets a target inflation rate of 2.0%. Maybe you'd like to explain why that is.

If not the Federal Reserve, there must be SOME financial institution that exists to establish monetary policy. But since it seems you can't comprehend basic macroeconomics, you just keep going back to that old song-and-dance of the gold standard. Why? Because it's easier for you to understand--or so you think?

The Man doesn't even know who you are...how is The Man out to screw you?

[rb336]

Article 1, section 8 gives Congress the right to borrow money, coin money, regulate the value of money, regulate commerce with other nations, between the states and Indian tribes and...to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution...

guess what? congress did just that by passing the Federal Reserve Act.

again, ONLY the states are limited to silver or gold coinage

and Ola, I wasn't "sobbing over chavez," I merely pointed out that he was much better than his predecessors for the people of VZ, and that what you hear from your low-information heroes and the federal government is blatantly bullshit that is easily disproven

[old guy]

Old Guy, when a country controls its own currency, rather than having a gold standard or tying it to another currency, it controls its own destiny.

Or simply put: Old Guy, when a [[small group of people within a) country controls its own currency, rather than having a gold standard or tying it to another currency, it controls its own destiny.

Show me something that is well documented, based on genuine research that shows that the Fed is harming the economy.

rb, I suppose I could post a number of articles, links and political cartoons going back a hundred years that point out problems with the Fed. And you could spend time debunking each of them, and we could go on and on.

I'm not saying the Fed is going anywhere, I simply have some questions that I can't seem to find answers for. We all know that nothing is going on in Washington. They've reached a stalemate on almost every issue. There are a few social issues being discussed but nothing gets solved concerning the economy.

The economy has stalled, unemployment is still high and vital programs are being slashed on a daily basis. Yet nothing happens. There's no economic growth. Yet, there's this small group of ultra wealthy people that are well connected that perpetually keep getting wealthier. There's obviously a mechanism in place that allows them to do that. Is it magic? Is it good luck? Are they just incredibly hard working people?

I'm just curious what that mechanism is, because the economy of this country doesn't seem to affect it in any way. So what is it? Like the old saying, just follow the money, it just seems to keep leading me back to the same place. Again, I'm just trying to figure it all out. It almost feels like the people that have the real power in this country merely told the politicians to take a break. Don't worry about fixing the economy right now because it doesn't affect us. In fact, if things get worse, people will become more desperate and in the end, we'll come out better. Sorry, but I'm just a bit suspect. The Fed does have oversight, but it's very limited.

Remedial history? People can use all the statistics and graphs and argue the facts. But if you're at least 50 years old, then you probably have a pretty good grasp on how inflation has affected your life over the past decades. It's not good.

Remedial history? I am history.

Sincerely, a person with a slightly different, and possibly wrong opinion.

[oladub]

The median household also didn't earn $50,000 in 1920. But of course, since you're the numbers guy, you knew that.

You also fail to acknowledge that the Federal Reserve sets a target inflation rate of 2.0%. Maybe you'd like to explain why that is.

If not the Federal Reserve, there must be SOME financial institution that exists to establish monetary policy. But since it seems you can't comprehend basic macroeconomics, you just keep going back to that old song-and-dance of the gold standard. Why? Because it's easier for you to understand--or so you think?

The Man doesn't even know who you are...how is The Man out to screw you?

Of course you are adverse to a Constitutional gold and silver standard. Such a standard doesn't let government pay off its debts with a printing press and would make it difficult for democrats and many Republicans to buy votes and have arbitrary wars.

One gallon of gas cost 30 cents in 1967 and $2.60 today. Three 1967 dimes, if melted for their silver content, buy 2.4 gallons of gas today. The difference between buying one gallon using depreciation federal reserve notes vs. 2.4 gallons with commodity based currency is the high price we pay for our dependency on the Federal Reserve to iron over life's presumed wrinkles. If you don't mind that it all winds up in bankers pockets, that's ok I suppose.

Jefferson ended Hamilton's first national bank. Jackson [[D) ended the second national bank. There was no national bank between the 1830's and 1913. The US grew at a phenomenal rate anyway so your premise that "there must be SOME financial institution that exists to establish monetary policy" is flawed.

[gazhekwe]

Let's see, in 1967, a good annual salary was maybe $8000, about 20% of today's equivalent. Bread at .50 a loaf, 12.5%. Gasoline at.30 a gallon, 7.5 %. It's kind of fun to figure these things out. Looks like we are spending higher proportions today. But then, if you look where all the money has gone, to support those who are selling these things, it does make you wonder, not just about the military industrial complex, but the whole consumer goods complex. We pay to subsidize farmers, we pay to subsidize big oil, and then we pay more and more for the goods we have already paid to produce. I'm positive that has more to do with the funding of our political system than it does with the Federal Reserve.

[rb336]

rb, I suppose I could post a number of articles, links and political cartoons going back a hundred years that point out problems with the Fed. And you could spend time debunking each of them, and we could go on and on.

please, by all means do. articles with corroborating evidence, not blogs, op-eds, etc. something with meat.

I'm not saying the Fed is going anywhere, I simply have some questions that I can't seem to find answers for. We all know that nothing is going on in Washington. They've reached a stalemate on almost every issue. There are a few social issues being discussed but nothing gets solved concerning the economy

The economy has stalled, unemployment is still high and vital programs are being slashed on a daily basis.

Yet nothing happens. There's no economic growth.

Private sector improvements are being offset by layoffs in the public sector. You can't cut your way out of a recession.

Yet, there's this small group of ultra wealthy people that are well connected that perpetually keep getting wealthier. There's obviously a mechanism in place that allows them to do that. Is it magic? Is it good luck? Are they just incredibly hard working people?

go back to when the huge disparity in wealth began. It all goes back to the villainization of union workers and Reaganomics. The favorable trade policies towards countries with child labor and virtual slave labor that have robbed the average person of the means to a decent standard of living.

Remedial history? People can use all the statistics and graphs and argue the facts. But if you're at least 50 years old, then you probably have a pretty good grasp on how inflation has affected your life over the past decades. It's not good.

Remedial history? I am history.

Sincerely, a person with a slightly different, and possibly wrong opinion.

inflation happens, it would happen with or without the Fed. Inflation over the last twenty years has been low - 2.5-3%. in the 70s it was more than double that. and the reasons for inflation have little to do with the fed. The vast majority of inflation over the last two decades has been due to energy costs, yet we continue to provide huge tax cuts to the obscenely prosperous oil giants, or to health care and insurance, yet we don't do a thing to reel in those costs either, even though big pharma makes good profits in Europe by charging a fraction of what they charge here

[oladub]

Article 1, section 8 gives Congress the right to borrow money, coin money, regulate the value of money, regulate commerce with other nations, between the states and Indian tribes and...to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution...

guess what? congress did just that by passing the Federal Reserve Act.

again, ONLY the states are limited to silver or gold coinage

and Ola, I wasn't "sobbing over chavez," I merely pointed out that he was much better than his predecessors for the people of VZ, and that what you hear from your low-information heroes and the federal government is blatantly bullshit that is easily disproven

Rb, Article 1, Section 8 didn't give that power to Goldman Sachs. It gave it to Congress. Why are you always trying to take powers away from Congress and give it to Goldman Sachs[[the Fed), the UN [[Libya), or the President [[warrantless drone attacks or executive orders)? Using your example of Congress delegating its powers to other bodies, it follows that Congress must have also done the right thing by letting Bush decide if he wanted to have a war in Iraq, and the Reichstag was brilliant in passing the enabling act for the duration of the emergency. You are in disagreement with fellow liberals Kucinich, Sanders, and Greyson who want Congress to have control over a transparent Federal Reserve. We differ on whether Congress and the Executive can give away their Constitutional powers. When power is given to the 1%, we just wind up with a bunch of rich bankers.

Speaking of heroes; a topic you brought up. Rand Paul led a 13 hour filibuster against your hero yesterday. Your hero believes he has the right to attack Americans on US soil with drones and deny Americans their 5th Amendment rights. That's just low.

[old guy]

please, by all means do. articles with corroborating evidence, not blogs, op-eds, etc. something with meat.

Fine, I'll post some boring diatribe that you can dispute.

Private sector improvements are being offset by layoffs in the public sector. You can't cut your way out of a recession.

Not certain what you mean in that statement.


The Federal Reserve System has faced various criticisms since its inception in 1913. These criticisms include the assertions that the Federal Reserve System violates the United States Constitution and that it impedes economic prosperity. Critic Miranda Fleschert contends that the twelve regional Federal Reserve banks [[as opposed to the entire Federal Reserve System) consider themselves to be private corporations with private funding. The movement to audit the Federal Reserve System has gained national traction; a bill related to the movement was passed through the House of Representatives in 2012. Many critics see auditing the Federal Reserve System as a means of gaining insight into an institution they contend has historically had little to no transparency, that has acted without congressional approval or oversight, and that has the power to create and loan U.S. dollars based on a monetary policy determined by its own interests.

Audit the Fed Coalition. 2009. Retrieved August 29, 2011. The Audit the Fed Coalition asserts that although the Fed is currently audited by outside agencies, these audits are not thorough and do not include monetary policy decisions or agreements with foreign central banks and governments. According to the Coaliition, the crucial issue of Federal Reserve transparency requires an analysis of 31 USC 714, the section of U.S. Code which establishes that the Federal Reserve may be audited by the Government Accountability Office [[GAO), but which simultaneously severely restricts what the GAO may in fact audit. The coalition argues that the GAO is allowed to audit only check-processing, currency storage and shipments, and some regulatory and bank examination functions, etc. The Coalition contends that the most important matters, which directly affect the strength of the dollar and the health of the financial system, are immune from oversight.

The Fed Audit

July 21, 2011

The first top-to-bottom audit of the Federal Reserve uncovered eye-popping new details about how the U.S. provided a whopping $16 trillion in secret loans to bail out American and foreign banks and businesses during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. An amendment by Sen. Bernie Sanders to the Wall Street reform law passed one year ago this week directed the Government Accountability Office to conduct the study. "As a result of this audit, we now know that the Federal Reserve provided more than $16 trillion in total financial assistance to some of the largest financial institutions and corporations in the United States and throughout the world," said Sanders. "This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you're-on-your-own individualism for everyone else."
Among the investigation's key findings is that the Fed unilaterally provided trillions of dollars in financial assistance to foreign banks and corporations from South Korea to Scotland, according to the GAO report. "No agency of the United States government should be allowed to bailout a foreign bank or corporation without the direct approval of Congress and the president," Sanders said.

The non-partisan, investigative arm of Congress also determined that the Fed lacks a comprehensive system to deal with conflicts of interest, despite the serious potential for abuse. In fact, according to the report, the Fed provided conflict of interest waivers to employees and private contractors so they could keep investments in the same financial institutions and corporations that were given emergency loans.

For example, the CEO of JP Morgan Chase served on the New York Fed's board of directors at the same time that his bank received more than $390 billion in financial assistance from the Fed. Moreover, JP Morgan Chase served as one of the clearing banks for the Fed's emergency lending programs.
In another disturbing finding, the GAO said that on Sept. 19, 2008, William Dudley, who is now the New York Fed president, was granted a waiver to let him keep investments in AIG and General Electric at the same time AIG and GE were given bailout funds. One reason the Fed did not make Dudley sell his holdings, according to the audit, was that it might have created the appearance of a conflict of interest.
To Sanders, the conclusion is simple. "No one who works for a firm receiving direct financial assistance from the Fed should be allowed to sit on the Fed's board of directors or be employed by the Fed," he said.

The investigation also revealed that the Fed outsourced most of its emergency lending programs to private contractors, many of which also were recipients of extremely low-interest and then-secret loans.

The Fed outsourced virtually all of the operations of their emergency lending programs to private contractors like JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, and Wells Fargo. The same firms also received trillions of dollars in Fed loans at near-zero interest rates. Altogether some two-thirds of the contracts that the Fed awarded to manage its emergency lending programs were no-bid contracts. Morgan Stanley was given the largest no-bid contract worth $108.4 million to help manage the Fed bailout of AIG.

A more detailed GAO investigation into potential conflicts of interest at the Fed is due on Oct. 18, but Sanders said one thing already is abundantly clear. "The Federal Reserve must be reformed to serve the needs of working families, not just CEOs on Wall Street."

[rb336]

First off, the Fed is regularly audited by the GAO. It is also very clearly constitutional as it was created by an act of congress to execute monetary policy as stated in art 1 sec 8. Does it have to be more transparent? I agree, it does. I certainly believe it needs to be run for the benefit of the people and not Wall Street.

As far as Miranda Fleschert, she's associated with Cato and Heritage through the WLF. Most of her legal opinions are designed to further the goals of those organizations, one of which is a return to the gold standard and elimination of the Fed. but I do agree with her that the Fed's records should be subject to FOIA requests.

[gazhekwe]

Gold wasn't even all that valuable on these continents until the white people got here. Lots of things had more value, commodities like nutritious grains, animals for work and food, metals that you could use to build or cook or plant and tend crops, fire, water. Gold is only good for beauty and power. Beauty comes from many other things. Power comes from hording to increase value for one's own benefit over the benefit of others, a purely imperial colonial import.

[Honky Tonk]

Gold wasn't even all that valuable on these continents until the white people got here. Lots of things had more value, commodities like nutritious grains, animals for work and food, metals that you could use to build or cook or plant and tend crops, fire, water. Gold is only good for beauty and power. Beauty comes from many other things. Power comes from hording to increase value for one's own benefit over the benefit of others, a purely imperial colonial import.

It's like diamonds. There are millions of the things on the planet. What makes them valuble, is the fact that one family hordes them, controls them, and squeaks them out a few @ a time. Oh, and the fact they "say" they're valuble.