# Sustainable?

**URL:** <https://forums.speedlife.net/t/sustainable/194783>\
**Category:** PittSpeed Off Topic\
**Created:** [January 14, 2008, 12:06pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/sustainable/194783 "2008-01-14T12:06:13Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 9

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![obi-1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ac8455/32.png) [@obi-1](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/obi-1)\
**Post date:** [January 15, 2008, 6:08am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/sustainable/194783/9 "2008-01-15T06:08:50Z")

</div>

> [@FS: 91 honda accord \*\*\*PICS\*\*\*](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/fs-91-honda-accord-pics/32723/31):
>
> Asset backed currency = the lack of the ability for any Treasury department to print money until they get more Assets.
> 
> Asset backed currency = strong currency, because there is a real, tangible asset to leverage the printed note representing the value therein.
> 
> I feel that it’s one reason why they did away with it: it was hampering their ability to spend/print more money.
> 
> Our current economics are a sham: faith backed funny money…tweak a point here, print a trillion there, invade a country here, negotiate trade deals there. What a shell game.

I don’t know, man. There’s a couple of things I don’t like about it. First, the economy can only grow as fast as the Treasury Department obtains assets. Second, by definition, the Treasury Department owns 1/2 of the nation’s assets.

If the only asset is gold, then the value of the nation’s economy is tied directly to the value of gold. And if the treasury dept can’t get enough gold, it has to acquire other tangible assets?? Land, perhaps?

Just playing devil’s advocate here.

---

_[View the full topic](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/sustainable/194783)._