Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
The primary reason America is in trouble is that the value of assets are secured with and denominated by fiat currency. Fiat currency needs no collateral as security. Fiat currency is backed only by faith. If you believe it is worth exchanging your valuable productivity for, than you will make that trade. If you do not believe it, you won’t. Fiat economies explode the size of government, foster socialism, destroy savings through guaranteed inflation, and leave equities at certain risk of deflation collapse when there is not enough productivity left to support it’s predecessor, inflation bloat.
In our present system, fiat currency is the product of a private banking cartel. The definition of a cartel is: a combination of independent commercial or industrial enterprises designed to limit competition or fix prices. That is all the euphemistically named federal reserve system is. Prior to December 24th, 1913, America had freely competing and independent banks, that were required by law (based upon the constitution -- after all, why have such a law?) to have a gold reserve to collateralize their currency.
What this meant was, as long as a bank had the gold in reserve, it could issue its own currency and serve its clients as the need for capital, savings and investment demanded. There was no central banking authority to report to. Banks were regulated by the states, and, to the best of my knowledge, there was no direct federal regulation. Inter-state banking was not allowed.
Private banking interests in New York, some having European ‘parents’, by the time 1907 rolled around, did not like the competition. ‘Lucky’ for them, there happened to be a banking ‘crisis’ just about that time, creating the pretext and setting the stage for banking ‘reform’. The leaders of the reform effort were the banking interests, who arrived at a juncture where they realized that some form of cooperation amongst their titanic selves was better than competing amongst themselves and not gaining control over all banking throughout the United States.
By December of 1913, they got what they wanted -- complete control over banking in the United States. What a sweet deal it was. Not only were they able to subjugate the once independent banks of America to their control, they were able to market their own currency, dictating that every bank, every man, every woman, and every child use it. To make the deal even sweeter, this cartel was empowered by the federal government to do what the states prohibited their banks from doing; issuing currency by fiat.
Banks that were previously disallowed from issuing credit beyond what their gold reserves could cover, are now suddenly put out of business by another banking power than can. That means they are not able to extend credit to their customers unless they first obtain the credit (in the form of the cartel’s fiat) from the new central banking authority, an ‘authority’ simply being a small group of politically and economically powerful individuals who are very ambitious, as well as equally thirsty, for earthly glory and power.
Now that the cartel has been granted an unfettered license to monopolize banking in America, now that they represent the ‘official’ currency of the United States, being a private banking concern, it just would not be fair for them to take upon themselves all that ‘risk’ (heaven forbid!) at running this vital enterprise for the (tears running down the cheek, flags waving, salutes all around, patriotic goose bumps rising) United States of America. “Don’t be silly!” the US government said to their new creation, “we would not think of such a thing. Whatever you need, we will get for you!” “Great,” said the cartel, “because in order for us to take on this risk, and since we are going to be issuing all the currency, we are going to need that gold.” By the time the year 1934 had ended, they got it -- they got it all.
Not a bad trade, really. The cartel prints a fancy piece of paper, and they get gold in exchange.
The government, of course, just loves this deal. Now the government can expand indefinitely without having to raise taxes. All Right!! Just call up the cartel and they’ll print up whatever you need. Oh, it is a loan of course. They structured it as a loan game as not to create the appearance of the government just printing money. That would just not do. “We are not just printing money,” the government reassures us. “We are getting a loan. By all means we will pay it back. This is a sound financial transaction.”
For a government, fiat money is fabulous, because it can be created right now, without any dependency on current supply of an underlying security (like gold), or any current level of productivity. Fiat is all about ‘buy now; pay later’. Government expansion based upon fiat bloat creates inflation. Inflation is the hidden tax. Inflation is taxation without representation. This has been going on for 88 years.
Since inflation-taxation without representation has been going on for 88 years, we should expect to see the prices of the fundamentals at sky high levels compared to what they were in 1913. They are. Fundamentals are housing, energy, transportation, food, clothing, medical, and education. More importantly, the percentage of income these gobble up under inflation-taxation without representation should be much higher as well, as represented by total cost of the fundamental necessity versus annual income. It is.
The tricky part in the fiat money game is that it takes productivity to support the bloat. If the balance of productivity and bloat are out of whack, than the value of the excess bloat collapses. Where does productivity come from? My answer is it starts with somebody thinking. An idea turns into an action that converts some part or parts of nature into a product that the producer believes he can trade for something of value, and thereby make a profit (hopefully). Often, that involves a considerable amount of time, hard work, and investment. Inflation-taxation without representation means productive people have to work much harder, and produce much more to obtain that profit they hope to obtain in their quest for life, liberty, and happiness.
What happens, though, when our productive people simply cannot keep up? They lose their ability to support the bloat. They lose their ability to afford it. If they cannot afford it, they do not buy it. And if enough productivity ceases for any reason, then lots and lots of affording and buying stops at the same time. When that happens, prices should fall until the productivity picks up again, and can manage the new bloat level. In a fiat system, especially one that has been bloating for 88 years, this can be very dangerous, and is why the cartel has been frantically bloating recently to avoid equity deflation. With no underlying security to the fiat, if the productive people can’t support the bloat anymore, a price decline could turn into a massive price collapse. If that were to happen, it might get people thinking “hey, there is something wrong with our economic system.”
The fiat cartel’s response to this is to pump even more bloat into the system, hoping that the lower cost of obtaining money will get those back broken producers back into action. What if the producers are already saddled with so much debt, that no matter how low the cost of borrowing, they simply cannot take on any more? Even if they could, is the difference of 3.75% to 4% really going to make that much of a difference? Not likely in the real world.
The word productive to some people is a good word. It means something positive and desirable. Yet when we get behind the word and take a closer look at what it takes to produce, we’ll discover that producing something of marketable value is often very difficult, to say the very least. In our Era of Chronic Irony, the bloated government that depends upon the producer has waged what is tantamount to a regulatory war with producers. There has never been a time in the past where the level of government regulation has been so high, and made it as difficult for a producer to create their product and bring it to the market. To say that the bloated government is out of touch is putting it mildly. The government just assumes that the productive people will always be there, and will somehow find a way to produce as the government inflicts even more regulatory strangulation on producers.
A classic illustration of this could be seen on a recent news show. The department of transportation has a new regulation of which auto companies must comply. There is an interview with the company. Clearly they are struggling to comply with the new regulation. It involves a massive R&D effort, When they finally get the prototype to do the government’s bidding, they will have to retool all their factories, at a staggering cost of billions of dollars, which will make the price of their cars even higher. Then we see an interview with a dumpy looking, pale, balding, old man, sitting behind a desk. He is the ‘official’ at the department of transportation. When asked about the difficulty this new regulation is causing for the auto companies, and the huge expense involved for compliance, the ‘official’ glibly replies, “they’ll figure it out, they always do; they are in the business to make a profit, and so they do what they have to do.”
In the meantime, our fat, balding bureaucrat is sucking up a salary of $120,000 a year, and he has a staff of 100 sucking up $60,000 a pop, and that is just in his corner of the building. Yet the government official is right. The productive people he sucks off of are always compliant. They do not know how to tell the government to blank off. They just hope they can pass the cost on to the buyer of their product, and the inflation-taxation without representation game in this mutation rolls on.
It is not that there will be any protest, mind you. It is just that the compliant sheep at some point will just get buried alive under the weight of a fiat bloatation system. The fiat system is the mother of the gigantic regulating monster of us all, and by it’s regulations adds an exponential component to the inflation-taxation without representation game. When the fiat cartel starts sniffing out that the productive people out there ( who by their back breaking work and effort are the ones who foot the fiat bill and enable the fiat masters and its evil step-sibling, government, to live high off the hog), then they rush into the market and flood the system with more money, money, however, that has to be borrowed in order for it to get into circulation. The cartel ‘parks’ the money by means of various intermediaries, and it usually ends up inside of certain index funds and futures hedge funds. But the money won’t stay there forever. If there are no takers for it (suckers) than the intermediaries pass the ‘money’ back to the cartel, because they do not want to assume the risk of holding it. That is what was behind the selling in NASDAQ and what was behind the after the rate-cut-fact selling in the DOW particularly, but in all markets as well since January of this year. There are no takers.
The cartel has come full circle since January. Actually, they have been moving in reverse. They are advertising low rates, but the lack of takers has resulted in contracting the recent injections of capital into the marketplace. Although the cheek turning Christian would not say anything, or dare rebel against the system, they do get burned out supporting the never ending escalation of inflation-taxation without representation. There is only so much weight a mule can carry. One more ounce will break their back. People are being crushed economically by inflation-taxation without representation. The only people that count are the productive ones. The beneficiaries of the fiat cartel bloat game is the cartel itself, and the government, a government that has glommed onto that easy money to enlarge itself to a grotesque size that never would have been possible without fiat money.
For those of us who are productive (that is a person who is not a government employee, or whose source of income is not exclusively government contracts) this is a bad deal. When we factor in the eco-fanaticism, and socialist mentality of nearly 60% of the population, and the millions of illegal aliens who come into this country to suck off producers, the net result is a historical squeeze on producers and productivity. If productivity starts to go in reverse, than the money bloat cannot be supported, and then by a slow process of attrition, our nation will discover that there are in excess of 60 million individuals whose lives were financed by the work of others. 60 million leaches, whose blood-sucking lifestyle is going to come to a crushing end. 60 million people, who are pathologically dependent on someone else to support them, incapable of producing anything themselves, will be clamoring to the government for a ‘solution’. The producers, squeezed out by the inflation-taxation without representation game, boxed out by eco-fascism, paralyzed by the overly aggressive dictates of government regulation, will not be there to bail out the blood-suckers.
All of this is going to lead to an unprecedented level of civil unrest, which will be followed by government crackdowns, martial law, and whatever else the government deems ‘necessary’ to keep the ‘peace’.
The surest sign of the end is all these ‘rate-cuts’ by the cartel at a time when the markets (DOW) is hanging around the all time highs, as the futures (SPs and NDs) are leading a resistant, and in deep denial DOW lower. The United States is headed for a very serious collapse, socially and economically, as a result of all the forces mentioned above. The depth and duration of the collapse is unknown, but there will be a collapse. That is the bottom line. If you are one of the smart ones who would say that the collapse is happening already, I am saying to you that you ain’t seen nothing yet.
To the rest of those in the denial class, I’ll let you argue amongst yourselves whose fault it was, and why it happened when the cold hand of reality shakes you out of your denial on the day you realize that the collapse did in fact happen. I am telling you right now that the cause of the collapse is an economic system based upon fiat, controlled by a private cartel of blood sucking thieves. The sooner we get rid of them, the sooner we can shrink the size of government, the sooner we can de-fang socialism, and the sooner we can restore America to its former glory. Unless that happens, America will continue to descend from one new level of trouble to another.
Can someone send me some Prozac? I feel a massive depression coming on.
"The sooner we get rid of them, the sooner we can shrink the size of government, the sooner we can de-fang socialism, and the sooner we can restore America to its former glory."
Sorry, much too late, my friend. The socialists have wormed their way into every aspect of our institutions. You couldn't blast them out with dynamite. The public is so uneducated, not one person in 100 understands fiat money. Anyway, isn't Greenspan going to save us with yet another rate cut? LOL.
LOL! I guess I'm lucky. After reading this article all I need is two asprin.
All of this is going to lead to an unprecedented level of civil unrest, which will be followed by government crackdowns, martial law, and whatever else the government deems ‘necessary’ to keep the ‘peace’.
They better hurry up and get those face recognition systems in place.
This article is absolutely true. There's a myriad of books out there about it. One is called "The Federal Reserve isn't Federal" (I think), and there's several written by other authors. Try these: Devvy Kidd, (Titles unknown), "None Dare Call it Conspiracy" by Gary Allen.
Out of print for years, the Gary Allen book is the BEST. It can often be found in used book stores for .50 cents to one dollar, or you can look for it at some online stores that sell used books. (Amazon) But then, larger corporations may not carry these. Gee I wonder why.
I just wish there was another "New World" to be shipped off to. Where oh where are all the habitable planets to colonize with groups of like minded individuals. We've been -stupidized- out of controlling our own government.
The Federal Reserve Note is worthless. It only has value because we are forced to use it by the banks/vatican/etc. This is the biggest scam and fraud foisted upon an unsuspecting populus EVER!
I read a piece like this and tears practically come to my eyes. Why? I remember why I started coming to Free Republic in the first place before it became a Dubya/Bush Dynasty/RNC cult site; intelligent and insightful posts.
You got it, spoosman, and you got it right. Hard times are acomin', and the surviving boomers will find "retirement" in a world shaped by the unintended consequences they themselves accelerated most unpleasant, if not downright lethal.
The 1930s were just a dress rehersal.
|
The primary reason America is in trouble is that the value of assets are secured with and denominated by fiat currency.
I'm trying to figure out what that first sentence says. Let's start with a house, since that is a common everyday asset. The sentence says that the value of the house is "secured with" fiat currency. What the hell does that mean? Am I supposed to be impressed with the word "secured" and think that this must be some deep, mysterious financial secret that I don't know about? Well, I'm not impressed. To me it sounds like gobbledegook strung together to make a sentence that sounds 'financial' -- by somebody who doesn't have the slightest idea what they're talking about. About the closest thing to meaning that could be ascribed to that sentence is some sort of claim that there is a secured mortage on the house, and the security for the mortgage is a big pile of currency. In other words, whoever this is had the cash to buy the house outright, but instead close to pledge the cash as security for a mortgage, just so they could make interest payments that they didn't need to make at all. Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. The next claim is that the value of the house is "denominated in" fiat currency. OK, if we get sloppy and confuse the 'value' of the house with the 'price' of the house, we could say that the price of the house is denominated in, say, dollars or francs or bolivars, and that those are all fiat currencies. OK, now suppose that Mars attacks, destroys all world governments, and it's back to the feudal system. Dollars are worthless. Is the house worthless because of that? I don't think so. The price just isn't denominated in dollars anymore. Now you have to show up with a hundred head of cattle, fifty goats, and 300 cartons of Marlboros to buy the house. So what? More to the point, it does not matter that the value of the house was once 'denominated in' dollars. We can denominate the price in goats or Marlboros if we have to. The dollar can disappear from the planet, but people who own real assets like houses will lose nothing. It's all a bunch of scary hoo-hah dressed up in what are supposed to be big mysterious words. Feh. |
Oh God Nick, I am so with you on this. I read this post and had the same reaction. It's all bullcrap. I wasn't going to post a reply for fear of being flamed by those that will claim to know exactly what this fool is trying to say and have reams of data/facts to back it up. Well I don't have any facts to back up my bullcrap claim other than the head on my shoulders and the good sense not to believe at least 50% of what I read. Even if it is posted on Free Republic.
In this case you are wrong. Just like those who laughed at Noah were wrong. It's coming. All the signs are there.
Now how does that go ...
Mark 4-23: If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.
To scoff at evidence of impending doom, is not something to do lightly. Better to be prepared, than to be surprised.
Wasn't this plotted on Jeckyl Is. off the coast of N. Carolina? Looks like they gave us a Hyde-ing.
Whew! Voices of sanity at last. Thanks. I couldn't read the whole thing either. I was too afraid that somewhere in there it probably says the bankers are all . . . (whisper) . . . Jews.
P.S. I am, however, intrigued by considerations of the gold standard, Jack Kemp's or anyone's. I am no economist, but it does seem to make sense that a currency have some other basis or standard than the price of a pizza.
The primary reason America is in trouble is that the value of assets are secured with and denominated by fiat currency.
Are you aware that the above sentence is gibberish? I admit that I did not get much farther than that; if yours was something other than the usual 'fiat currency' tirade, then I suppose I missed something. But probably not.
What's so hard to understand? All the author is trying to say is that the system (money) we use is to assign value to goods and services is flawed.
When my parents came to Alaska in 1976, carpenters made $15 an hour. Last month I talked to a friend of mine who was a carpenter and he told me that he makes a little over...well...$15 an hour. Don't tell me nothing is wrong with the US economy.
I did try to read the whole thing but I must admit to bailing 2/3 of the way through. I just couldn't stand another misused "than". The word is then. Hey! Spoosman. Get a dictionary! It'll only cost you half a goat.= ;^D
If you guys were really so smart, instead of stating how foolish this is, you might get some background on economics, and money. Fiat money is the most dangerous money ever conceived by the mind of man. If you don't understand it, you and the rest of you are fools to scoff at it.
Try starting your education in economics by looking up this subject: "fractional banking." When you find out that banks are only required by law to have one percent or less of their depositors balance on hand at any time, you'll see how scarey this situation can be. Think about it. If only two percent of the population decided to withdraw 60% of the money in the bank, the banks would collapse as insolvent. And that is only the TIP of the iceberg.
That's really FUNNY isn't it? Ha ha ha.
NO Wonder that they refer to us all out here as the "great unwashed." Should be the "great brainwashed."
It has been my experience that all these folks preaching that gold is the only way to go are perfectly willing to accept our "worthless" dollars in exchange for this precious commodity. Why is that?
Don't tell me nothing is wrong with the US economy.
I don't believe Nick was trying to say there's nothing wrong with our economy. It's not a perfect system. Heck, the perfect system would be for everyone to be productive and give and get everything fo free. But then, that's communism, isn't it? And that sucks too. I dunno. I'm tired. Flame me later. I'm going to bed.
Spoosman may have spelling problems, but you have a comprehension problem.
What banks are required to have on hand and what they do have on hand are two different things. No, I am not an economist, but you do engage in something of an alarmist tirade. If you want to educate people you need to explain yourself with better clarity and logic.
The stupid government has either paid off France with most of our gold many years ago, after they collected all our gold certificates and cashed them in, or given it to the Federal Reserve Bankers. We still have a tiny room full at Ft. Knox for the tourists to see. For a while it was ILLEGAL to even own gold, that's how they got it away from the citizens.
Now, they've made gold personna non gratta in transactions, and labled folks who deal in gold or cash as suspected drug dealers, and confiscate any that they find.
I agree with your post, thanks.
But, I have been asking this question to a number of scholars and conservatives everywhere. Who or what exactly set the interest rates for the country before the Federal Reserve Board and Alan Greenspan? Nobody can answer my question. Was it the president, secretary of the treasury, etc. Who??
Spoosman may have spelling problems, but you have a comprehension problem.
I didn't say Spoosman had spelling problems. It's his usage of the word "than" that I got tired of.
And why are you being so insulting? Do you think that perhaps now that you've buttered me up, I'll be more receptive to your teachings on the finer points of macro-economics? I'll scoff at whomever I like. So just keep on ranting.
And so are you going to tell us that while that there is this cartel of evil people, there are also many thousands of less than evil, brilliant, and highly knowledgeable people making a living in the financial world who have no clue?
The interest rate BEFORE the FEDERAL RESERVE, and for many hundreds of years, was 6% simple interest per year.
Why? Because that was the rate of discovery and recovery of new sources of gold and silver. People used gold and silver coins then, and they had to have the raw material to make the coins.
Haven't you read historical books taking place in historical England, where the kings men were visiting the homes of all the noblemen and confiscating and melting down the silverware? That was for wars, when they needed to buy additional arms, pay or feed the sailors/soldiers, etc.
You forgot the "Gold Bug Nut" alert in the title.
Hey man, some of us have eaten from trash can catering stuff while the rest of you were not even thinking about anything but the buck, civil rights/wrongs, and de good old welfare check...we are tough...now the rest of you will have to learn how to find the good stuff...lol...I'll be there before ya'...Ya' get up, ya' go to work (if you can find some), ya' go to school, ya' eat egg salad sandwitch and peanutbutter.. tell you can't stand the smell of it......it was just a worthless piece of green paper all along. poof!
|
What's so hard to understand? All the author is trying to say is that the system (money) we use is to assign value to goods and services is flawed.
For example, you have just referred to "money" as a "system to assign value to goods and services." To me, the system we use to assign values to goods and services is called a "market," and that is very different concept than that of "money." In fact we could have markets without any money at all; humans did exactly that for many thousands of years. This is an important distinction, because the author is making the claim that the underlying value of assets (goats, sheep, shares of salon.com, etc.) is somehow trumped by whatever happens to the value of the currency we use to effect transactions. That is nonsense. It is just not true. If dollars were somehow rendered worthless tomorrow, your car would still be worth a whole lot; we just wouldn't measure it in dollars anymore. We'd measure it in TV sets or something. All this ranting about "fiat money" is so much hot air. Yes, the system has flaws. There are no flawless systems. Nothing humans do is ever flawless. That is not a reason to return to the days of bartering goats for sheep, and it is not a reason to think that turning U.S. monetary policy over to gold miners in Russia and South Africa is a way to improve our lives. There is a tremendous amount of sound-bite sloganeering in that article that, when really examined, makes no sense. I don't mean it's wrong, I mean it literally makes no sense, as in "the author doesn't know the meaning of the words he's using and is therefore spouting gibberish." |
fyi
The interest rate BEFORE the FEDERAL RESERVE, and for many hundreds of years, was 6% simple interest per year.
Do you care to cite a source for that?
Out of print for years, the Gary Allen book is the BEST. It can often be found in used book stores for .50 cents to one dollar, or you can look for it at some online stores that sell used books. (Amazon) But then, larger corporations may not carry these.
Sounds like a major case of deflation. Maybe he should have put something of value in the book.
Gee I wonder why.
Maybe because people have more sense than we give them credit for. You don't think it's some kind of conspiracy do you?
Just answer these question: Who IS the Federal Reserve? Who are the people who own the stock?
Look it up. The Federal Reserve is a Privately Owned Corporation. Who owns it? Name names. It's SECRET. You won't be able to find out. Why? Why is it secret? If everything were ok-fine/no-problemo why not release the names of the owners? They fund the entire country...who are they?
I get severe indigestion when confronted with lies. Everything I have ever found out about the Federal Reserve is based on lies. Lies and secrets. We are the OWNERS of this country...we the people. The government is an institution WE put in place to do OUR business and a nation...a nation of people. Why are we being lied to? Why are these critically important facts being withheld from us?
Yes. I rant. I have been studying this since 1991. There is darn little about it I haven't read, and still darn little that can be found out. I don't like it when the "elites" make fools of us. I don't like it one bit. And I hate it when some of us "People" (sheeple) scoffs and acts like everything is just fine, just move on, nothing to see here.
This "fiat money" is the smoking gun that could bring down the entire country. And it worrys me a great deal. It is more serious than our problems with China, than our problems with the Middle East, and more serious than Energy and the Environment. It is the most serious issue facing our nation today.
Finally, just pretend...pretend that all your money is worthless. What will you do? What can you do? Think of what will happen to your life, your children. Food; shelter; clothing; education. Now what if that really happened? Problem is: it very likely could.
Well, if our money becomes worthless, then EVERYONE's money becomes worthless as well. Then we are trading goats and cigarettes, as Nick pointed out.
What I can see that would happen is that assets in securities would be zapped. Even then, I am not sure whether that would cause problems or not.
I have a couple of volumes of Statistical Abstracts of the United States. I had to do a paper on it a few years back, and found it in there then. Just check the 1800s, nearly any year. Those books are found readily in any library. I also had a few old history books, but not with me now (at another location where I do volunteer research work) that showed what the early colonists used for money. In Maryland, a common medium of exchange was Tobacco. (We grew it then and it was a big crop.) Many other places used whiskey. Coins were in short supply, since England imposed many regulations which kept the Colonies from actually acquiring coin, and barter was common. Spanish pieces of Eight were favored because of the ridges on the sides (like on our dimes/quarters edges). That way people knew they were getting the full weight of the coin, as it was common to slice off a little piece of gold/siver coins.
Colonies experimented with paper money then. They were called Continentals. When they became worthless, the phrase "Ain't worth a Continental" became equivalent to "worthless".
It was due to the Colonies experiences with the Continentals that made them so adamant to use only gold and silver as the currency. In our Constitution, you'll read that only Congress has the power to coin money, and only of gold, silver and precious metals.
Printing ain't coining money.
See post #25
Everything I have ever found out about the Federal Reserve is based on lies.
LOL! Freudian slip?
excellent article. I've been wondering what needs to be done to get to a zero or near zero inflation rate. Didn't we used to have a zero or near-zero inflation rate? Even today at 3% it is pernicious.
No... no slip. The FEDERAL Reserve is NOT Federal
Why use the word "FEDERAL"??? Because it appears to be a governmental agency. This is the kind of lie that I refer to. It is no more Federal than is Federal Express. Now you don't think that Federal Express is a Government agency do you? Or are you more gullable than I think?
The Federal Reserve is a private, secret, privately owned corporation. I don't have to assert that there is a cartel. The evidence is right there staring you in the face. Look it up.
And for those "educated" people in the stock markets...well, where did they go to school? Who taught them? Government and government funded schools... Why would they teach them the truth, if they've been lying about if for 88 years? Silly man.
Red...
There was no "inflation" until we began using PAPER money, and then the deflation began. Inflation is a misnomer. It is really a progressive devaluation of the dollar. By excusing it a an "out there" inflation, it points the attention away from the real issue...the dollars' constant loss of value over time. This always happens with fiat money.
Red...
There was no "inflation" until we began using PAPER money, and then the deflation began. Inflation is a misnomer. It is really a progressive devaluation of the dollar. By excusing it a an "out there" inflation, it points the attention away from the real issue...the dollars' constant loss of value over time. This always happens with fiat money.
I think I'm going to throw up....either it was to much information....or my brain and my stomach believe our economy is going to hell.
I think I better start hording gold (I just so happen to have one of those secret gold closets in my 1870's house)
Hey Mr. Danger,
I didn't read the first post and I didn't read your post entirely because of the length, and it easy to get the gist of both, but I believe the first post is about right after scanning it, because I have studied the subject of money, and why I'm so poor in such a rich nation.
Conclusion is simple: Read the Protestant Bible and it will explain it all. We are commanded to use only gold and silver at a fixed rate in comparison to the average weight of a kernel of wheat, which gives you your labor and commodity standard.
Then you would increase your wealth by work and innovation, not robbery through high taxes, extorting loan interest, phony IOU's pay checks for yourselves while the public must make a profit, and others who have gained power through deception like insurance, force of arms, but not by consent of the governed.
Paper money? Give me a break! Just one more joke that is immoral, like so many other insults, to God and His Once Free People.
If I were as far in debt as the government they would be calling in on that debt and taking property, right? But then I do not have the ships, planes, and armies to say, "I don't think so."
Hey Mr. Danger, freedom use to mean not owing anyone, fair trials, and land to survive on, but what does it mean today, immorality?
Yes it's a long post, the subject takes time to prove true or false, but once you do take the time you will know what must be done; follow the Holy Scripture and forgive all debts every fifty years on the Jubilee, and use gold and silver like the Constitution says. There is a reason they call it a Jubilee!
But it might be hard, keeping all one hundred and fifty of God's laws, unlike those fair and easy to understand million plus laws of man, which not to know is no excuse when before a judge. But someone has got to stand up for common sense sometime, rather than just being dangerous.
That is not a reason to return to the days of bartering goats for sheep
Seems a lot more honest than taking people's money at gunpoint to fund entitlement.
Colonies experimented with paper money then. They were called Continentals. When they became worthless, the phrase "Ain't worth a Continental" became equivalent to "worthless".
The problem with the Continental was that it was easily counterfeited. The British did the evil deed, but it inadvertantly helped the colonies for awhile by adding liquidity.
As to who set interest rates before the Federal Reserve, I believe that the correct answer is individual banks, or maybe at the state level, since I believe they had to have a state charter. Of course, individual banks still set rates for consumers today. The rates that the Federal Reserve set are for loans between banks which didn't really exist before the Federal Reserve was created, although there were clearing houses that served a similar purpose, but not on a national scale.
I am, however, intrigued by considerations of the gold standard
Well, I suppose I'm only opening myself up to massive flamage by posting this, but there are some basic problems with returning to a gold standard:
A) There isn't enough gold in the world to cover the dollars in circulation, let alone the yen, pounds sterling, deutsche marks, etc. By shifting to a gold standard, you would insure that a lot of people who have wealth in the form of currency would be simply unable to obtain an equivalent sum of gold. Hence, instant impoverishment for many;
B) Virtually all the gold that has ever been mined is still in existence, yet more is produced. In the long run, gold loses value, especially when adjusted for inflation. Just look at the performance of gold over the last fifteen years (okay, don't bother, I'll spoil the surprise - compared to other investments, it's been absolutely in the toilet, Monex commercials notwithstanding. You'll almost never go wrong shorting gold ;)).
The claim is often advanced that paper currency only has value as long as people believe it has value. Of course, it is usually ignored that the exact same thing is true of gold as well. There is nothing inherently valuable about gold, except that people want it. Just like paper currency. If people stop valuing gold, gold becomes worthless. And when you get right down to it, there's absolutely no difference between buying things with pieces of yellow metal versus buying things with pieces of green paper.
Hey, is it getting hot in here? ;)
Interesting thread bump.
Alan Greenspan said on National Durring a Session of B.S. and told everyone..we are broke!
Thank you. I'm too exhausted to bother.
Thank you for confirming, prior to 1913+ period inflation was extremely low. Also, I believe that unemployment prior to 1967 was normally between 3.0 and 3.5% on average. Other than the 30's where it got to 35%, unemployment would sometimes spike down to 1.0% and sometimes up to 12%, but it was 80% of the time 2.5%-4.0% except for the 1930's. Interest rates, didn't they?, used to be lower than what we've had the last 30 years?
They tell us, 'lowest unemployment in 30 years', they don't tell you the last 30 years have been the worst in US history for unemployment. They say they're lowering interest rates, they don't tell you that interest rates and have been for a long time at historically high levels.
I'm not an economist, but tell me if I'm right or not.
Try this experiment. Then tell me which you would rather have. Paper or gold as money.
----------------------------------
Take 2 $ 20.00 gold coins 1800 vintage. Discover what they would buy you at 1800 prices in goods.
----------------------------------
Take the face value of those coins (which is what they were used at in 1800). What will $40.00 buy you in todays market place in goods? Try to select comparable items.
----------------------------------
Ignore inflation. It didn't exist before paper.
----------------------------------
Now. How rich are you REALLY?
“they’ll figure it out, they always do; they are in the business to make a profit, and so they do what they have to do.”
....that's right, Balding Old Man, they'll take out all US auto manufacturing and move it to China or South America and there will be MORE UNEMPLOYED AMERICANS who can't produce to keep your bloat going!
All money is fiat currency, be it dollars or gold.
Money is nothing more than a placeholder, a counter we use so that I don't have to provide an equal amount of service to you when I get a service from you. I can give you money, so that you can exchange it for service later on, even with someone other than me. This is true no matter what you use for money. So what is your point?
Thanks. I always greatly appreciate any and all help in this department. But I have a few of comments. With regard to "(A) There isn't enough gold . . . ," doesn't that depend on how it is valued? Simply make a tiny chunk worth a whole lot. Presto! (O.K. so I am not an enonomist). Also, as for "(B)" yes, gold is in the toilet, but isn't that precisely because it is not used as a standard and because governments have been dumping it? And third, with regard to metal vs. paper, is there no value at all in using a physical commodity instead of paper? And, would it not be, as it has been, a worldwide standard with the same value everywhere, unlike combative paper currencies?
When my parents came to Alaska in 1976, carpenters made $15 an hour. Last month I talked to a friend of mine who was a carpenter and he told me that he makes a little over...well...$15 an hour. Don't tell me nothing is wrong with the US economy
That's called a surplus of carpenters. That's due to a shortage of other jobs, and that's a result of free trade. It also has to do with the fact that good quality power tools cost less and less, and more folks are more willing to DYI becaue they no longer have the bucks to hire a carpenter. With a negative balance of trade, (more foriegn goods coming in than our goods going out,) if we were on the gold standard we would have long ago been squeezed dry like juicing orange. That's essentially the process that destroyed the Roman Empire, we will run longer on paper. On Gold, we would have already died.
I suggest a serious look for another line of work somewhere. It probably won't ever get any better for carpenters who are now only getting 15 dollars an hour. Try getting a government job. It's only a fraction of the difficulty of carpentry, and no real skills are required.
The house I live in was purchased in 1948 by my parents. They financed it at 6% because it was real property. That was the rate then for property. It was considered very bad to borrow any money from the bank. Bankers were considered evil. (Remember Little Nell and the Railroad tracks, and the unpaid Mortgage in all the children's cartoons?) So interest rates were low, because people didn't borrow unless they were destitute. Saving was considered a virtue. So, to get money to loan, banks had to pay 6% interest.
Interest rates began to go up with the use of credit cards. First were the store cards, then the gas cards. And finally the VISA and Master Cards.
The final blow came when laws were passed to allow FRACTIONAL banking. Once the funds required to be on hand in the bank were reduced dramatically, the banks could lend money they didn't have. In order to cover their depositors, they needed a fresh infusion of cash. Thus, credit cards interest began to climb rapidly. Until today, we have virtually nothing IN the bank, and the banks interest and bills are being paid with credit card interest income. As folks stop their spending sprees, the banks are becoming ... WOBBLY.
Very helpful. Thanks. But I would suggest that the fall of the Roman Empire was a little more complicated.
Okay, there are some problems here, but let's see if we can pin them down.
You want me to take $40.00 in gold coins, see what $40.00 would buy me in 1800, and then see what $40.00 will buy today. If I had gold coins, silver coins, wooden nickels, coins carved from rocks, whatever, and then we pay attention to ONLY the face value - what you wanted to do - then it matters not what the coins are made of, they've all lost value.
What I think you are getting at, though, is an attempt to demonstrate that an ounce of gold will buy roughly the same amount of stuff today as it would 200 years ago. With all due respect, that's simply wrong. Gold is no more immune to inflationary pressures than any other commodity.
As I said, all the gold that has ever been mined is still in circulation. And more is still being produced. We have more gold today than we did yesterday. And tomorrow, we'll have more still. Now, what happens to the value of a commodity as it becomes less and less rare? It declines, of course. As scarcity decreases, value declines in relative lockstep. It's why diamonds are worth comparatively more than corn - diamonds are relatively rare, whereas 99¢ will buy you a whole can of corn.
Why is gold somehow immune to the laws of supply and demand?
And if you have a response to my first objection - A - I'd be most interested in hearing it.
But I would suggest that the fall of the Roman Empire was a little more complicated.
Fascinating. You obviously know more than Gibbons. Do go on.
|
instead of stating how foolish this is, you might get some background on economics, and money... Thank you for that advice. I'll look into it. Try starting your education in economics by looking up this subject: "fractional banking." When you find out that banks are only required by law to have one percent or less of their depositors balance on hand at any time, you'll see how scarey this situation can be.
Do you know about fractional demand produce? That's the system by which grocery stores carry only a fraction of the amount of produce necessary to feed everyone in their service area. Do you realize that if even 15% of the people in their service area came in to stock up on the same day, that they would run out of food? Zoot Alors! We are doomed! We shall all starve for sure! There are things to worry about. Fractional reserve banking is not one of them. Yes, if an asteroid hits and the Chinese invade on the same day, all bets are off. But if that kinda crap starts happening, bank reserves will be the least of our worries. I realize that there is a segment out there that wants to be prepared for Armageddon at all times, and someday they'll even be right. Good for them. I'm not going to live my life worrying every day that I'm about to be struck by lightning. There are far higher probability threats to my freedom. Hillary Clinton is real. |
In our Constitution, you'll read that only Congress has the power to coin money, and only of gold, silver and precious metals.
No, you will not read that in the Constitution because it isn't there. The states are prohibited from issuing any currency but gold and silver. There is no corresponding restriction on the United States. It would have been easy for the framers to put it there, but they did not.
Hitlary! Now there's a real threat to freedom.
You have a few questions in here, so I'll try to take them on one at a time.
With regard to "(A) There isn't enough gold . . . ," doesn't that depend on how it is valued? Simply make a tiny chunk worth a whole lot. Presto!
The basic problem with this is, as with any commodity or good or service, the value isn't what you or I say it is, it's whatever you can get someone to give you in exchange for it. If you can find someone to give you a million dollars for your car, then your car is, by definition, worth a million dollars, no matter what the NADA and Kelley Blue Book say.
Right now, you can exchange roughly $300.00 cash for one ounce of gold. By that standard, there are too many dollars and not enough ounces to go around.
Also, as for "(B)" yes, gold is in the toilet, but isn't that precisely because it is not used as a standard and because governments have been dumping it?
Not really, no. Why would any government dump it - that is, sell it for less than it's worth?
Actually, I think I know what you mean - that much gold is flooding the markets because governments have decided to get rid of it. But that only proves my point - as more gold is available, gold becomes less valuable. The claim is often advanced that gold is somehow immune to inflationary pressures. That's just silly - not that I mean to suggest that you are silly for asking the question. The main point is that, just like paper currency, there is more today than there was yesterday, and tomorrow there'll be more still. As scarcity decreases, so does the value, for gold, paper currency, oil, wood, whatever.
And third, with regard to metal vs. paper, is there no value at all in using a physical commodity instead of paper?
Well, I suppose that depends on what you mean by "physical commodity." Like I said, gold is only really valuable because people want it. If nobody wants it, you won't be able to buy so much as a pack of smokes with a whole pile of gold coins. It has no inherent worth beyond what someone will give you in exchange for it - think of it as the flip side of my car example above. If nobody'll give you anything for your gold, your gold is worthless.
And, would it not be, as it has been, a worldwide standard with the same value everywhere, unlike combative paper currencies?
I suppose. But then you already have pretty close to that anyway. Traveling overseas? Buy your souvenirs with your Visa/Mastercard - your bank will give you a much better rate than those money-exchange joints will, they'll handle all the conversion mess for you, and you'll never have to mess about with foreign toilet-paper currency that requires you to carry 40,000 notes to buy a cup of coffee...
Besides, control of the money supply is something near and dear to national governments everywhere, and I don't think that any are ready to cede sovereignty to South Africa, Russia, Canada, and Australia - which is where most of the gold in the world comes from. Would you want the governments of those nations directly determining how much you can afford this week?
Incorrect answer. There are 3 kinds of money. Fiat is the third kind.
With all due respect, that's simply wrong. Gold is no more immune to inflationary pressures than any other commodity.
-----------
Gold has intrinsic value. Paper does not. Gold can be used for a miriad of purposes, both industrial, and for adornment. It is rare, has unusual properties. Thus, valuable. Paper is paper. Worthless. Subject to whim and fancy, and the quantity printed can fluxuate wildly.
-----------------
In times past, when a need for funds arose, jewelry could be melted down, or silver. There was a finite amount, and so supply and demand regulated it. Today, no longer used as currency, there is more available, thus the supply has increased. It IS the only currency we are told by G-d to use...that is if you are a believer in the Almighty.
Please Mr.Danger,speak on subjects you have a clue about because as I can tell money is not one of them.
Look it up. The Federal Reserve is a Privately Owned Corporation. Who owns it? Name names. It's SECRET.
Why are you telling people this nonsense? You claim to have "read everything" and that you've "been studying this since 1991" and yet you do not know who owns the Federal Reserve banks?
C'mon, it's right in the Federal Reserve Act. Federally chartered banks within an FRB district are required to buy stock according to a formula based on their assets. State-chartered banks may become member banks, but are not required to. Member banks receive a fixed 6% return on the stock they own. Each member bank gets one vote when electing the directors of the Federal Reserve bank of which they are a member; bigger banks do not get more votes.
So who owns the member banks? Almost all large banks in the U.S. are publicly-held companies. By law, such companies must report the names of anyone who owns more than a 5% interest in them. It's a research project to dig through a bunch of annual reports, but it's not secret and many have done it.
There is just nothing mysterious about this. Sorry.
I said:
In our Constitution, you'll read that only Congress has the power to coin money, and only of gold, silver and precious
metals.
You said:
No, you will not read that in the Constitution because it isn't there. The states are prohibited from issuing any currency but gold
and silver. There is no corresponding restriction on the United States. It would have been easy for the framers to put it there, but
they did not.
Quote directly from Constitution:
Article 1
Section 8
The Congress shall have the Power To....
Coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States.
-----------------------------
Where does it say the States coin money?
The British did the evil deed, but it inadvertantly helped the colonies for awhile by adding liquidity.
Did the colonies have money prior to colonization?
If not, how on earth could've they possibly survived?
Thanks god for the colonizers, otherwise whole nations would've been wiped out without money. NOT
Nicky. I'm disappointed in you. You haven't done your homework. The Board of the FR is appointed. The member banks are it's customers. That's why they CHARGE them the Prime Rate! It has 6 regional branches. But the corporate stockholders are not disclosed. The FR was originally set up with money from a small group of people, who established a Privately OWNED Corporation. Their names are SECRET. Capiche?
Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?
"The claim is often advanced that paper currency only has value as long as people believe it has value. Of course, it is usually ignored that the exact same thing is true of gold as well. There is nothing inherently valuable about gold, except that people want it. Just like paper currency. If people stop valuing gold, gold becomes worthless. And when you get right down to it, there's absolutely no difference between buying things with pieces of yellow metal versus buying things with pieces of green paper.
There is a difference. It's easy to print green pieces of paper. Gold has to be found ,mined and refined. Look up the definition of inflation. Hyper inflation in post WW1 Germany helped boost Hitler into power.
I think we're just going to go round and round here.
Gold has intrinsic value.
No, it doesn't. It's value is whatever you can get in exchange for it. If you can buy 300 goats with an ounce of it, and I can buy 300 goats with my pieces of paper, guess what? My paper is worth exactly as much as your gold.
Gold can be used for a miriad of purposes, both industrial, and for adornment.
Paper has many uses - as a medium of exchange, as a form of communication, and as a means of imparting knowledge to people in distant lands or future times. Try doing that with your gold.
It is rare, has unusual properties. Thus, valuable.
No, it is valuable because it is rare, has unusual properties, *and people want it.*
I have a very rare - one of a kind, really - and unusual piece of dog waste in my yard right now. It's got an unusual shape and smell - hey, he's been eating a lot from the table lately - and, as I said, it's unlike any other you've ever seen. Now, how much am I offered for it? Didn't think so.
If and when people stop wanting gold, it will buy me no more than the dog crap in my yard will. Period.
There was a finite amount, and so supply and demand regulated it. Today, no longer used as currency, there is more available, thus the supply has increased.
That's more or less what I said, although I would point out that the amount of gold available now is still very much finite and the value is still regulated by supply and demand. Supply has increased and the value has declined. The supply will continue to increase and the value will continue to decline.
Gold or paper money is only worth what people prove it is worth by what amount of PRODUCTIVITY they will trade for it.
Productivity is the only real money in the world. All the rest is merely another means of exchanging goods and services. And I don't want the Federal Reserve run by the government anymore than I want my grocery store run by them.
It's a research project to dig through a bunch of annual reports, but it's not secret and many have done it.
Find the names. If you do, you'll be the FIRST. No one else has, and I have read many books on this subject. I know several people who have been looking for those names for over 30 years. Please. If you find them, send me the list.
I will try this again tomorrow. My head is nodding on the monitor as a drift off to sleep....
"And when you get right down to it, there's absolutely no difference between buying things with pieces of yellow metal versus buying things with pieces of green paper."
Except for the fact that yellow metal has a standard intrinsic value and represents past labors (real wealth) while FRN's have no intrinsic value. Expansion and contraction policies with their attendant inflation and deflation cycles are designed to steal real wealth by stealth from the wage-earner and transfer it to those that don't work and those that don't need to. This, of consequence, in concert with taxation, will insure that the working class will stay within its boundaries and will never become a financial/social/political threat to the 'ruling class. And the beat goes on......
I'm familiar with inflation, thanks ;) And gold loses value, just as any other commodity does, just like paper currency does. Long-term resistance to inflation is not an advantage of gold over paper notes, and since it has several comparative drawbacks, there's nothing to be gained and much to be lost by changing back to gold.
speak on subjects you have a clue about because as I can tell money is not one of them.
Oh good, an expert. Maybe you can tell us: What is money?
"Gold or paper money is only worth what people prove it is worth by what amount of PRODUCTIVITY they will trade for it."
Exept for one thing. The supply of paper money can be increased at any time if the printing presses are cranked up. If this is done you have inflation. Inflation devalues that paper money. This has happend in recent history.
"And gold loses value, just as any other commodity does, just like paper currency does."
It loses value relative to the dollar. Paper money was inflated under the Carter administrtion to the point that gold almost hit $1000.00 dollars an once. Gold is hard to come by giving it more stability as a means of exchange. Paper money is not as it can be printed at will.
Except for the fact that yellow metal has a standard intrinsic value
No commodity or good or service has any "intrinsic" value. Gold is no different. The only value that gold has rests in the fact that someone will give you something in exchange for it. If and when that ceases to be true, gold will have no value at all.
and represents past labors (real wealth)
The cash that my employer gives me certainly represents the labor I have given forth over the last week. In that sense, I fail to see how it is any different than gold.
Expansion and contraction policies with their attendant inflation and deflation cycles are designed to steal real wealth by stealth from the wage-earner and transfer it to those that don't work and those that don't need to. This, of consequence, in concert with taxation, will insure that the working class will stay within its boundaries and will never become a financial/social/political threat to the 'ruling class. And the beat goes on......
I don't follow you. What are we aiming for here? Gold-standard-based socialism?
"No commodity or good or service has any "intrinsic" value."
I beg to differ. Try living without food.
Where does it say the States coin money?
I didn't say the states coin money. They can't. I said the states couldn't issue any currency but gold or silver. The clause is a prohibition, not a power they have. The point is, this prohibition applies only to the states. The Congress is not prohibited from making other things besides gold and silver legal tender.
Article I, Section 10: No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.
It loses value relative to the things you want to buy, too. Which is inflation. As long as the supply of gold increases and the demand is static, which it is, then gold will lose value.
Look, my point in all this is not to suggest that gold is worthless, merely that it has no real advantage over paper currency. Clearly, it has some value, as evidenced by the fact that people will still buy it from you. But if they stop buying, it has no value, just as paper currency won't have value if people stop accepting it. Ergo, unless you're really concerned about the impending collapse of human civilization, or some other thing that would cause people to stop accepting greenbacks, there's really no good reason to hoard gold. As an investment, it's a dog. As a currency, it introduces a host of problems.
Bingo.
It's always frightening when someone strings together a series of sentences which have no semantic content but which contain enough big words and "insider" language to convince people they know what they are talking about.
Of course, the only ones convinced are those who already agree with the basic premise of the article. Those on the fence find nothing to sway them (because it isn't there) and those with an opposing view regard it as the white noise it is.
I find the "one in a hundred can understand fiat currency" statement amusing. Apparently there even fewer who can analyze an argument about it and realize it's mere propaganda.
I am talking about "value" in an economic sense. I'm not talking about philosophical or ethical or moral questions, here - the "value" of a human life, or of freedom, or whatever. It is "value" in the economic sense. The value of anything, in the economic sense, is whatever you can get for it. Gold is not valuable because it is pretty, or yellow, or relatively dense, or magical, or anything like that. Gold is valuable because, if you have some, others will give you things in order to get it. That's it. That's all there is to it. And, in the economic sense, gold will have no value when you have some, but no one will give you anything in exchange for it.
Food is valuable to me because it allows me to live. Therefore, I desire it. But by any objective valuation, in the economic sense, my food is worth whatever I can sell it for, not what I think it ought to be worth. It may be priceless to me if I am starving, but the point of economic transactions is to find objective valuations of things, rather than relying on my subjective feelings about what my stuff is worth.
Consider your family photo albums. They may be irreplaceable, representing hundreds of events in your life. To you, those albums may very well be priceless - you would accept no amount of money for them. But then again, how much would some stranger give you for them? Not much, I think. In that sense - an economic, objective sense - your photo albums are worth very little, no matter what your opinion is of them.
And gold is just like that. It is valuable because someone will give you something for it, no matter what your personal feelings about its "intrinsic" value are.
I'm in awe over the intellect freely soaring. If I ever try to debate you it will be on a good day. All a simplton like me can do while astounded at the watchmaking precision before me is to check the deadbolt on the front door. Damn! It's been open all this time.
y'know, i read this garbage when it had about two replies, and was tempted to debunk it
i came back later and was about to tell mr. locks that his mystery doesn't exist, and i found that you saved me the trouble
sometimes the economic illiteracy here is stupifying
to the uninformed fed conspiracy theorists -
the fed should be abolished not because it's a grand plot to fleece you, but because MARKETS set interest rates and the fed only interferes with the process and MAKES MISTAKES in doing so
a gold (or any other) monetary standard is useful because it prevents governments from 1) inflating whatever currency is in use, and, 2) as is now the case, mistakenly deflating it
since the fed's not going anywhere anytime soon nor is the dollar likely to be restored to a gold standard, the next best thing is to target the dollar to a gold price range or to other commodity prices or to the price level in general
doesn't much matter what, as long as it can't be created out of thin air, the market price(s) of whatever it is will indicate when there are too few or too many dollars, and a trained monkey could execute the needed open market purchases or sales of government paper
but, don't expect price level targeting to happen, if more fed screw-ups and a good depression wake people up, the next "solution" will probably be worse than the current mess
you cannot send many of the good jobs overseas without affecting the tax base and then to run a trade imbalance like the one we have with mexico and china is a disaster just waiting to happen - but it is happening right now and things will only get worse - but the sheep are still asleep or listening to the liberal/communists - so things are okay in dummy land.
I just clicked on this to read your response. You cleaned up this piece of bovine excrement with your first post.
|
Nicky. I'm disappointed in you. You haven't done your homework. The Board of the FR is appointed. The member banks are it's customers. That's why they
CHARGE them the Prime Rate!
The rate charged by the Federal Reserve banks to its member banks is called the Discount Rate. The Prime Rate is something else entirely. If you're going to peddle yourself as an expert on this stuff, at least find out what the words mean.
If you mean which which corporations own stock in a given Federal Reserve bank, they most certainly are. Here, for example, is a list of the institutions in the twelfth district, where the FR Bank of San Francisco is. But maybe you meant "who owns the stock in the member banks?" Well, we still have some privacy left in this country, so unless somebody owns at least 5% of the shares, that's not public information. That's not just true for banks, that's for any corporation. On the other hand, if they don't own even 5%, they don't swing a very big bat there. If you're interested, you can go to sec.gov and go farming in the annual reports to see who's listed with 5% beneficial ownership of any bank you want. I'm not gonna do it for you. But to claim it's a secret is silly. You just have to look.
The FR was originally set up with money from a small group of people, who established a Privately OWNED Corporation. Their names are SECRET. Capiche? Because it isn't true. Put another way, it's bullsh*t. It's a kookburger myth that anyone can convince themselves is absolute crap by the simple acts of (a) reading the law establishing the Federal Reserve; (b) going to the FRB sites and seeing which banks are in which districts; and (c) looking up the bigger ones on the sec.gov site. I'm sorry to bust your bubble here, but you are peddling canal water from a bunch of kookburger sites, and I for one just happen to not be tired tonight, and so I'm going to take the time to show people how to find out for themselves that in spite of all the noise you make about how knowledgeable you are on this subject, you do not know what you are talking about. And what's even worse, everything you do know is wrong. |
"I am no economist, but it does seem to make sense that a currency have some other basis or standard than the price of a pizza."
Actually, Nick Danger's logic agrees with you about this when he refers to his house's price being denominated in goats or Marlboros. What he is leaving out is that the currency we are using does not have an INTRINSIC or OBJECTIVE value. Goats and Marlboros do have intrinsic values as goats and Marlboros. So does gold, silver, and oil. Pieces of paper, with politician's pictures on them, do NOT have such value. The paper had value prior to it being covered with ink. The ink had value before being applied to the paper. Those commodities lost their value when turned into paper money. You see, when you trade something with intrinsic value for something with NO intrinsic value, someone in the exchange has been cheated, whether or not they subjectively realize this. Nick is correct when he states value and price are different. Price is a reflection of supply and demand and the quantity of money in circulation. Value is concept. Something has value because of characteristics that are inherent to the object. The fact that something has value is reflected in its being able to command a price, but the value itself can't be quantified by humans, but perhaps God could put a figure on the value of things.
What the author of this piece is trying to say is the money that is in circulation is NOT re-presented by paper currency and debased, slug coins. The vast majority of our "money" is re-presented by deposits. Those deposits are liabilities on the books of the bank. The deposits are DEBTS of the bank and ASSETS of the depositors. Deposits are increased when the level of DEBT in the economy increases. Here is how this is done:
Through a system called fractional reserve lending, the Federal Reserve enables the banks to create "money" (deposits) out of nothing. This is done through the lending process. Let's say the Federal Reserve sets a reserve requirement of 10% on the banks. For every $1.00 on deposit, the banks have to keep $.10 in reserve. I go to the bank and ask for a $1,000 loan. The bank grants the loan by depositing $1,000 in my account. All the bank has to do is keep $100 in reserve. Now they have $900 more to lend to someone else, as long as they keep $90 of that deposit in reserve. This goes on and on until the original $1,000 in deposit is exhausted. All of this "money" is out there chasing goods and services. None of the money has any real value like the commodities and services it is chasing. All it that has happened is that more DEBT has been "created." The debt has to be paid with interest, but debt is not money. Debt is supposed to be REPAID with money, but, in reality, all people do in this system is exchange DEBT, or IOUs. When your employer either gives you a check, or "ACHs" money directly into your account for your pay, all you are getting is your employer's IOU for your pay. That IOU gets added into YOUR collection of IOUs re-presented in your checking account balance. If you have more IOUs in your account than you have "traded" to others, you have a positive balance in your checking account. You can write more IOUs to others, and they can add your IOUs to the other IOUs in their checking accounts. No real value is being produced. Only debt is being traded for real goods with real value, and this is all done with an interest charge.
As long as the people don't catch on, or something like the S&L crisis doesn't happen, the IOU trading can go on and on. When this system collapses, the economy falls into depression because it is no longer possible to go to the bank's lending window and get more debt in order to prop up businesses that had no real economic reason to exist other than the easy debt system. Those business existing on debt collapse. Those people employed by those business are now no longer employed. The businesses default on their debts and the unemployed workers default on their debts. As debt is written off, the "money" supply CONTRACTS. The deeper the contraction, the deeper the depression. Sure, you can still sell your house for goats and Marlboros, but there won't be very many people who have goats and Marlboros with which to buy it until real value once again drives the economy and sends the signals to investors that reflect REALITY.
I mentioned the S&L crisis because the government had to make "good" on all the hundreds of billions in deposits with the S&Ls by charging it off to the National Debt. The FSLIC deposit "insurance" was too small to cover the DEFAULT of S&L debts to depositors. If this had not been done, about $$700 billion would have been wiped out--all of it DEBT--and that would have created a bigger deflation than the Great Depression. It could happen again, as such disasters are inherent to this system. It is a "money" system based on nothing more than check kiting. All that can keep such a system running is government compulsion and deception.
"I don't follow you. What are we aiming for here? Gold-standard-based socialism?"
Well, if you followed me, you'd realize I was saying just the opposite. We already have socialism because of the FRN scam -- creaming the workers to support the welfare state through taxation and manipulation of the purchasing power of the buck. Gold is something that won't deteriorate in value or substance and can be stored and traded 10 years from now for what it's worth today. In other words, you can save for a rainy day and be assured your savings won't deteriorate in purchasing power.
I realize that anything of intrinsic value can be used as a medium of exchange -- even bottle caps. But gold has many other uses. Can you imagine someone saying "With this bottle cap I thee wed" or using an FRN as a tooth filling?
Bartering will always be with us, but I don't think stuffing a suitcase with lettuce for a long trip would be the smart thing to do. Gold as a basis for the medium of exchange across all borders worked for thousands of years. Why did it change? Because there was no way to legally steal another man's wealth (labor) short of slavery, until enter center stage, the Federal Reserve System -- Babylonian banking and the manipulatable FRN.
"...I'm going to take the time to show people how to find out for themselves that in spite of all the noise you make..."
I wish there were a way for me to post a short film clip of myself, giving you a standing ovation.
Greenspan cannot define our money because we have NONE.Congressman Ron Paul sure put Greenspan in a box when he asked Greenspan to define our money and to explain to the American people how can you manage what you can't define!Greenspan said "YOU CAN'T"!But we do have PLENTY of debt to go around.All we have is a money system that is based on monopoly money and faith with NO BACKING " no intrinsic value".Let us have just the facts on this thread instead of a bunch of SHEEPDIP.
But, BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
Is that the flock getting spooked over the truth?
The Bible has the laws on how to run your country and your money system, but who do you think knows best, man, or He who created man? I know what man says.
God made a true and fair system simple so the simple would not get cheated, but the sophisocated make it complicated so you know who gets the short end of the stick.
Gold and silver at a fixed rate according the the average weight of a kernal of wheat, and I'm sure God made plenty of gold to go arround if we could just get it back from those who are hoarding it. I wonder where it is?
I know there are a lot of works of art made of gold that are called graven images in the Protestant Bible, and are commanded not to even be made, and a lot of other non-functional things that are using up the gold too.
Just a thought.
But we should just let the proffesionals handle it, they'll do what's right for all of us! Right?
Take a look at this post. Let me know what you think.
GUNS & GOLD!
Why, if this system of banking is so bad, has the standard of living gone up so dramatically?
...there was no way to legally steal another man's wealth (labor) short of slavery...
You nailed it guy!
And charging intestest on your fellow countryman is teason too, or at least big a sin, according to God. You would only do that to an enemy; decrease their wealth. But then how could they enslave us without breaking God's laws?
The truth sets you free because it does not tolerate the money changers, extortion, or slavery.
Are you any kin to Silver Goldi-Lox? You can read about her here:
Forget The Counterfeit "FRN" - POKER CHIPS Are Now Legal Tender!
enjoy...
Why, if this system of banking is so bad, has the standard of living gone up so dramatically?
If I were a government and could just write paper money when I needed wealth, instead of allowing the nation to produce and give me, let's say ten percent, would all that phony wealth I printed bring up everyones standard of living, because of government contracts, paychecks, and entitlement programs, until the debt came due on the money I borrowed?
Like during the Great deppression?
They had to borrow it, because everyone knows money has to come from some real thing that has value, labor or the goods that are produced from the Earth.
"The silver is mine, and the gold, sayeth the Lord."
Perhaps it can be inferred that the value of silver and gold 'changeth not' either.
"They had to borrow it, because everyone knows money has to come from some real thing that has value, labor or the goods that are produced from the Earth."
It looks like we fell into legalized slavery when we started borrowing using future labors as collateral, the Federal Reserve debt system. The gold standard (real wealth, already earned) prevented that kind of slavery.
And that prohibition on the states was so that the US Government would receive all its money in gold or silver.
See, back then, if you do your history lessons, you'll find that the Federal Government ONLY got it's money from the States. There was no direct taxation (since it's UNConstititutional) of the citizens. All they got were duties, excise, and imposts. Plus, any taxes that were APPORTIONED to the several states.
So, by making gold and silver the only way the states could pay their apportioned taxation, ensured that the Federal Government received its income in gold and silver. Simple.
Then we are trading goats and cigarettes, as Nick pointed out.
I don't smoke, or have a stockpile of cigarettes; and the Mexicans have eaten all the goats in the area.
Sounds like, with your goat herds, you and Nick are in pretty good shape. If things pop, I wouldn't mind borrowing a goat or two from you. In the meantime, I will gladly accept any and all donations of worthless fiat money. Hell, with the Mexican appetite, I'll even accept goats.
Some good points were made in this thread and I can see where one could take either side. Nonetheless truly Gods Word is the truth and one cannot go wrong by following it. I noticed noone debated Gods Word!! Good work!!
Gold: Intrinsic value:
Note: Although food has "intrinsic value" it is only a temporary value. If you have food, you cannot save it. It will spoil. You cannot build up wealth with it, since you cannot save what you cannot use.
Gold does not rust, does not break down, can be kept for thousands of years if necessary without any impact. It can be stored. Since it can be stored (buried/hidden/etc) it can be accumulated, and since it is small (compared to the giant rocks some cultures used) it can be transported easily for trade.
It is extremely malleable, and can be hammered to one molecule in thickness. It can be molded, formed, or poured into bars. It is stable.
It is an excellent conductor of electric current, and can be used as a commodity.
Who taught you that the standard of living has gone up???The illusion is people have put themselves in massive debt and they are living way beyond their means.Nothing like banks extending your credit as to only BURY you in a mountain of debt.Check out the inflation figures on the federal reserves site from 1913-2001, then study the inflation figures from 1800-1900,you will be truly blown away at the numbers.Remember,inflation is a hidden tax.Yes,let us expand the money supply with fiat currency to support growth of the nation because the next generation will pay the price for this expansion and sooner or later the bubble will burst and the bankers will demand payment.But remember the bankers created the money out of thin air and they don't even back what they lend.How can you loan something that you don't own to begin with because you cannot create something of intrinsic value with nothing.The fed refers to this as the Mandrake Mechanism and I refer to this as a Con Artist scheme to enslave the people and to enslave the people in a monopoly.Can I sale you my home for 500k at 7% interest on a 30 year note when the home I own only exist on a piece of paper.No,you would tell me to show you the home wouldn't you.The fed is doing the same thing.
America is in big trouble because she's morally and spiritually bankrupt.
There is no one so blind as one who refuses to see.
I made some silly errors because I was falling asleep. I'd been up since 6 am, and it was 20 hours later. That's why I said goodnight...
You still don't understand that the owners of the FED are not the people who are currently operating the "business" of it. As for it's structure, the Regions etc., it's really all just a smokescreen, since the main office, and major influence is the NY Office. The others are just arms of the octopus.
For all you conspiracy-debunkers. I haven't said ONE word about conspiracy. All I've said is that the FEDERAL RESERVE is privately owned. I just want to know by whom. Try not to get hysterical about it.
Is that why Goldman Sachs has been buying gold for years? So did the British. It's been cheap, artificially so.
Econ 104: Money is a Medium of Exchange, a Store of Value, and a Unit of Account.
The question is, does fiat money satisfy the requirement for a store of value? It can. So can gold. You can't eat either one. Any good considered to be a store of value is subject to declining marginal value, including money itself. Why do we need a store of value in what could be a perfectly fluid medium?
Money is a means of integrating the valuation of all potential transactors through pricing upon which it depends for validation of its store of value function, a relationship of mutual dependency. Pricing is a way of communicating the total market opinion of value (even gold can be worthless as long as there are preferable substitutes). I am beginning to wonder if money itself is becoming obsolete. The speed at which information moves, approaching what economists call "perfect knowledge" can substitute for the unit of account function via instantaneous barter in shares of contracts for goods (including discounted options). If the unit of account is obsolete, so is the medium of exchange.
Perhaps the halting experiments in Internet currencies are a symptom of this phenomena?
"We are commanded to use only gold and silver at a fixed rate in comparison to the average weight of a kernel of wheat, which gives you your labor and commodity standard."
OMG. The author is right. We are all doomed. But not for the reasons he espouses.
BTW, are we also commanded to use a cubit calibrated measuring tape?
Is that why Goldman Sachs has been buying gold for years? So did the British. It's been cheap, artificially so.
I don't know about GS, but lately the British have been selling gold.
I was referring to the use of treasury sales to depress gold spot prices so that private interests could buy cheap. Remember that sudden halt in a British sale so that they could cop that mine in Ghana for a song when they became exposed on the options market?
Also notice at the same time,the value of the pound sterling has fallen like a rock.Yea,I hope the brits keep on selling gold on the market so that the pound will be valued the same as the euro.If that happens,Tony Blair will get his wish and convert to the euro and the brits will lose their shirts thanks to the gold sell off.
No,I don't remember that. You mean the British aren't selling gold because it's such a poor investment?
For what it's worth, my knowledge of the Federal Reserve has developed thru self study, and interactions with individuals who have devoted their lives to the truth. Many have sacrificed fortunes they could have earned to do so, since their love of their country is that great.
These kinds of patriots do not happen with frequency. Most Americans are more concerned with the problems of the day, their family, and earning enough to do the things they want. They don't bother to look beneath the surface of things to find out the "why" and "how" of the way things are.
I do not profess to be an expert. Mr. Danger has tried to pin that label on me. I reject that. However, I am an individual who seeks truth. I am relentless in my search for truth. I do not believe something just because it is what I was "told" or because it is the popular theory. I want evidence. I want to see the historical development of an event. I want to read the analysis of experts on both sides of the issue.
Having done that on this issue, I have come to the conclusions that I have elucidated on earlier posts. In order to understand the Federal Reserve and its impact on our nation, it is necessary to understand the nature of money.
There are, as I noted before, 3 types of money. First, money that is worth something because of what it is. Gold, silver, and platinim are historically precious metals used as money. Then the second type is a sort of paper-IOU for the intrinsic money. An example is a "note" based on ownership of gold. (Remember Silver Certificates?) One person transfers the certificate of ownership of the gold (bearer ownership) as a means of payment, while the gold resides safely in a neutral location. It can be cashed in at any bank. Finally, the third type is a paper used as a means of exchange based on an idea, concept, or other item that cannot be "quantified" or measured. That is the Fiat money...like the FRN (Federal Reserve Note) which is based on the "full faith and credit of the US". You can't cash it in for anything. Thus, it is technically worthless.
I have not spent a great deal of time laboring over how the Federal Reserve is currently set up, where it's branches are, and how many people work there. Particularly since I have a massive disdain for it. It is sufficient for me to know and understand WHAT it is, WHY it is, and HOW it is. I know WHERE it is (NY). What I seek now is WHO it is.
The answer is no we are not.
I do know more than Gibbons in some areas. Besides, Gibbons had many biases, one of which was some simplistic finger-pointing at the Church. Personally, I find far greater cause in the realm of economic decline, perhaps with respect to gold, yes, but more so in the increasing state control of land and the stifling of competition.
All money is fiat currency, be it dollars or gold.
I agree. I have never understood why people believe gold has some inherent worth. It was pretty, shiney, rare, and malleable. But you can't eat it, live in it, drive it, warm youself with it, make weapons out of it, or cure illnesses with it. Historically, salt has as much or more inherent worth than gold.
Gold is valuable because we decided it was, and that made it a medium of exchange. Similarly, dollars are valuable because we decided they would be, and now we use them for a medium of exchange. If we decide paper money has no value, we may just as easily decide that gold has no value. And if we don't protect our private property rights, neither is of any value.
Yes, I was in Europe last summer, and boy did I use my credit card!!! Thanks for being so civil with one who is so ill educated in economics. You make great sense. I have two more questions, though.
(1) Some gold bugs are actual economists and otherwise intelligent people. Jack Kemp, a man who has his faults but who is certainly not a crackpot, argued for the gold standard in one of last week's editions of the Wall Street Journal. In essence, it was all about how no currency has ever survived that has left a gold or silver standard (I believe he did discuss the current plight of the British pound), but he did not really explain the basis of his support for the gold standard . . . which is what you have been helping me to try to understand, or to discredit. I need to comprehend it before I can dismiss it. So, for a moment, think like him. What would he say to me?
(2) And what about the current plight of the British pound (sans sterling)?
|
You still don't understand that the owners of the FED are not the people who are currently operating the "business" of it.
All I've said is that the FEDERAL RESERVE is privately owned. I just want to know by whom I've already told you by whom; it's specified in the law. You just don't want to hear that it's not some secret cabal that hides out on a mountaintop in Switzerland, because a bunch of socialist crackpots have convinced you that it is. Ask yourself why you are so concerned that the Federal Reserve is privately owned. Most Freepers would consider government ownership of the means of production, in almost any field of human endeavor, an undesirable state of affairs. But all these crackpot kookburger sites that peddle this "Federal Reserve is a Plot!" nonsense advance the proposition that private ownership of the central bank is an evil thing. According to them, what we need is The Peoples Central Bank, a government-owned entity that will protect us working folks from the greedy capitalists. I mean, give me a break, did this not ring any alarm bells in your head when you read it? Did it really not occur to you that somebody who is trying to sell you 'workers vs. capitalists' class struggle and a plan for government ownership of the means of production is trying to sell you communism? Those two items are Doctrine One and Doctrine Two of Marxism. And here you are, peddling it on Free Republic. Get a clue: you've been tricked. |
Goats are hard to withdraw at an ATM machine. Better stick with cigarettes.
Take a look at this post. Let me know what you think.
Most of what the author states is correct. This is not a good topic for Freerepublic as it does not lend itself to simple analysis.
To take just one point, look at what the government has reported for inflation in the last 10 years (basically under 2% per year). If you bought the cheapest car 10 years ago, you may have paid $5 tp $6 thousand. Now the cheapest car is over $10 thousand. But the government says because the new car has more features, the price is not inflating. Follow that reasoning for other products and you get an idea of what has been happenning.
No Nick...you're the one that's been tricked.
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known, and he carries his banners openly. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very hall of government itself. For the traitor appears no traitor. He speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their garments, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in hearts of men. He rots the soul of a nation. He works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city. He infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A Murderer Is Less To Be Feared." Cicero, 42 B.C.The only difference between communism and socialism is its method of imposition. Communism is forced upon the people against their will. Socialism on the other hand is entered into voluntarily by the majority of voters.
Even though the goals are the same, socialism is much more dangerous because it gradually enslaves the people without the use of visible force, while artfully disguising its evil motives with a variety of so-called noble causes.
The evils of socialiam and humanism cannot survive exposure unless "good men and women do nothing". The following is offered in hopes that you will join our efforts to expose those evils. Your comments are WELCOME!The 10 planks of the communist manifesto written in 1848 by Karl Marx appear below in red.
The Communist Manifesto
- Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. Property tax paid annually prevents the outright ownership of property, because if property can be confiscated for taxes owed, it can never truly be owned. The application of our rents of land (property taxes)are used for public purposes as envisioned by Karl Marx.
- A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. The income tax was imposed upon the people briefly after the War Between The Southern States and The dictatorial Federal Government. In 1895, The US Supreme Court abolished it with the words, "The income tax is indeed a direct tax and therefore unconstitutional". The Court understood that, "No capitation, or other direct Tax shall be laid,..." Art. 1, Sec. 9, of the US Constitution, means exactly what it says. However, in 1913 there were enough socialist in Congress to again foist the income tax upon the people with the 16th Amendment to the Constitution. The income tax is not designed just to raise taxes, which could be accomplished very easily with a national sales tax. Instead, its goal is to punish achievement, invade privacy, and control the people through fear and intimidation from the most gestapo-like arm of our government, the I.R.S.
- Abolition of all right of inheritance. Our inheritance tax puts all rights of inheritance in jeopardy. Property tax, income tax, and inheritance tax, should be abolished because they are all direct taxes and they all violate our God-given property rights. They could be replaced with indirect taxes like sales tax, tobacco tax, alcohol tax, or gasoline tax. Some advantages of indirect taxes are:
- They are indeed Constitutional.
- Our privacy would be protected.
- Everyone who spends money participates, including the super-wealthy, foreign visitors, illegal aliens, drug dealers, and others now in the underground economy.
- It is a pay as you go system - no April 15th.
- The IRS and all associated collection cost would be eliminated.
- Lower production cost will allow business to compete internationally.
- Prices would come down more than the expected sales tax increase.
- Business would expand creating new jobs.
- The money now in off-shore tax-havens would flood back into this country stimulating the economy.
- Manufacturing would come back home absent the over-taxation and over-regulation that drove them to foreign countries.
- Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. Our government does not normally confiscate property of emigrants, however, many laws and regulations have been passed in recent years which allow many government agencies such as the I.R.S., O.S.H.A., E.P.A., B.L.M., and drug enforcement agencies to confiscate property from citizens that are considered rebels. Much of this confiscation is achieved without due process of law.
- Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. The Federal Reserve System was created in 1913. It is not federally owned and nothing is in reserve. It is a private corporation with the power to increase or decrease the money supply by changing the interest rates and the reserve requirements of its member banks. It can create money out of thin air, lend it to the government and then collect the principal and interest from the taxpayers. That is why its owners always have and always will promote war and socialism to create inextinguishable government debt.
"Permit me to control the currency of a nation and I care not who makes its laws" Baron De Rothschild, brainchild of the Federal Reserve Bank."If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them, will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." Thomas Jefferson
- Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. Communication and transportation are controlled by a number of government agencies, e.g., The Federal Communication Commission (FCC), The Dept. of Transportation (DOT), The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Public Television is also a good example of state control of communication for the indoctrination of the concepts of socialism and humanism.
- Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvements of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. Dan Smoot's book, "The Business End of Government" revealed that, the federal government owned 1165 different businesses like AMTRAC. The Bureau of land Management, The Department of Agriculture, The Department of Commerce, The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), etc., all promote a common plan of more and more regulation and control from government with less and less freedom enjoyed by the people.
- Equal liability of all to labor and the establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. Heavy taxation, over-regulation, and other economic problems caused by our government's adoption of socialism has forced women to labor equally with men. Our industrial army is the Social Security System which requires membership at birth.
- Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equitable distribution of population over the country. We are not living under this plank totally. However, we do have many large agriculture corporations who have combined all levels of production from the farm to the consumer. It appears that the goal of this plank is to reduce the number of family farms making it easier to gain control of all food and fiber production. This goal is fast becoming reality.
- Free education for all children in public schools.... Communist and socialist have long recognized the value of indoctrination through a free educational system. And, it has produced a people with no understanding of the vast differences between the Free Enterprise System and socialism. During our Bicentennial celebrations (1986), a national poll of school children revealed that 46% of them believed that "From him with the most ability - to him with the most need." was part of our Constitution. Today all socialist, all liberals and most democracts believe the same thing.
Would it surprise you to learn that "The Democractic Socialist of America" are alive and well in the U.S.A.? Its "Progressive Caucus" list 58 members from the U.S. House of Representatives. All are democrats except their chairman, Benard Sanders, who ran on the socialist party ticket. You can find the list at: Democratic Socialist of America
"Thus it is easy to understand how law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds." Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850).
SCRAP THE DAM CODE & FIRE 115,000 GESTAPO IRS AGENTS WHILE UR @ IT!
Thanks you for the insightful analysis. I begin to understand. So, given an economic crisis, what would be the best thing to have most of one's money in? (1) stocks like General Electric (2) land (3) a house (4) government bonds (5) corporate bonds (6) gold (7) none of the above. Isn't it true that people who owned stocks (not on margin) prior to the Great Depression and held onto them forever did just fine? (I would also venture to guess that the greatest safety valve in the Depression, one which is largely unavailable to most people today, was the family farm).
"That is not a reason to return
to the days of bartering goats for sheep"
Seems a lot more honest than taking people's money at gunpoint to fund entitlement.
You got that right !!
This article was so good that I printed it out and read it last night before bed. Thanks
Interesting, but didn't we just do something about #3?
I suggest that you are betraying a bias. You assert that the reason treasuries were selling the gold is that they were trying to get out of a poor investment. I see. Let's see how that really worked.
The example story to which I refer was, as I recall, in late 97 or early 98. I assert that treasury sales across the globe were being used to hold gold prices low, below the cost of production in many cases and that it was being done to mask inflation and preserve the perception of currency value. Now, you may say that this is an assertion on my part as price and demand are related, but let's check on a few events and see what the market tells us about that.
As I recall there was a mine operator in Ghana who was one of the few independents left; i.e., not European-owned. Because of depressing affect of treasury sales on gold prices, he had to play the options market to stay afloat. The British Treasury announced a large sale and the amount to be sold right on the heels of a similar sale in Zurich. Africans complained that they might be unable to make payments on IMF/WorldBank debt without a rise in commodity prices. Suddenly, they halted that sale about half-way through. Prices shot up 20% in two days (as I recall the price went to $305), indicating a pent-up demand above the value that had been artificially maintained by treasury sales (and a violation of a fiduciary responsibility to maximize the sale price to the taxpayers who owned the gold).
The Ghanian mine operator went bust on his options. His mine was purchased not surprisingly by a British firm for pence on the pound, another wondrous deal done by those of stirling character. American gold traders (as I recall Shearson Lehman and Goldman Sachs), buyers of many of those contracts, cried foul and demanded a bailout, which they got. The mine operator wasn't so "lucky."
This is indication to me of several things. During that entire period, I was struck at the size of the sales and wondered who was buying that much gold at obviously favorable prices (I found out later, investment bankers). I also wondered why governments should be selling into low prices. Now you say that they are selling and I would not at all be surprised that the sellers did better than equities holders on the NASDAQ. Now they have the cash to buy the residual quality dotcommoners for pennies on the dollar and at low interest rates. Such a deal!
You say that gold is just another commodity. I say, so are currencies, that represent value in themselves only because they are more liquid and fungible than commodities. Given the increasong sophistication of commodities contracts and the increasing utility of an electronic medium of exchange, store of value, and unit of account, coupled with increasing bandwidth and improving analytical tools, perhaps that shall not remain so for long.
"Why, if this system of banking is so bad, has the standard of living
gone up so dramatically? "
An illusion perhaps?......two average incomes now required to raise a family
versus a single income being adequate 30-40 years ago......hmmmmm.
Nope....they have discussed abolition of the death tax, but it is not law.
I am fairly certain it was part of the tax cut package. It will be phased out, to be sure, over 9 years, and still needs to be made permanent, but I am certain it was part of the package.
I may be incorrect on that. I'll check and get back to you.
BINGO !
This just should be printed on a red poster with a Hammer & Sicle in the corner. Check this out:
If productivity starts to go in reverse, than the money bloat cannot be supported, and then by a slow process of attrition, our nation will discover that there are in excess of 60 million individuals whose lives were financed by the work of others. 60 million leaches, whose blood-sucking lifestyle is going to come to a crushing end. 60 million people, who are pathologically dependent on someone else to support them, incapable of producing anything themselves, will be clamoring to the government for a ‘solution’.
To the original poster, for someone who doesn't claim to aspouse socialism, I would put forth that your argument is 7/8s socialism with 1/8 of a few chapters cut and paisted from the creature from jeckle island.
Don't let this kind of communist-loving-class-warfar-seperationist-junk divert your energies.
If you insist on the path, there's a small island off the Florida coast where your "Workers of the world, unite!" garbage is welcome.
|
You then go on to say, "The Federal Reserve System was created in 1913. It is not federally owned and nothing is in reserve. It is a private corporation." That's what I've been saying. We have a privately-owned central bank. Communists would call for centralizing this function in the hands of the State. Marx says so, right in the Communist Manifesto. Now I ask you: who has been tricked into peddling socialism (or communism) on Free Republic? Is it the people who are perfectly happy to have a privately owned central bank, or is it the people who are claiming that private ownership of the central bank is some kind of scam that we need to get rid of? What is the alternative to private ownership? It is State ownership. It is what Karl Marx called for in his manifesto. And it is also what the Federal Reserve Kookburgers on Free Republic are calling for. Does that mean they are closet Marxists? I doubt it. I think it means they don't know enough about this subject to even realize what they are advocating. They read on some web site somewhere that private ownership of the central bank is a bad thing. This was all couched in deep conspiracy crap that makes it sound like they're being told Top Secrets that nobody wants them to know about. And they fall for it. They don't know enough about Marx to realize they've just been handed a central tenet of Marxism. Then they come back here and they start spewing Marxism and they don't even know they're doing it. If anyone points out that they are peddling class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie ("The working man is getting screwed!") and advocating Plank 5 of the Communist Manifesto, they get all huffy about it and insist that the people who disagree with them are just not privy to the Big Secrets yet. Yeah, we have a problem in this country. We have people who call themselves conservatives who are so ignorant about how our economy works that they can be fed Marxism and they believe it. They'll even come onto Free Republic and defend it. |
It's been estimated that there are more than 500 million copies in print of Karl Marx's Manifesto of the Communist Party and Das Kapital. How many billions of impressions of Marx's monetary philosophy have been etched into human consciousness nobody can calculate. He is celebrated as the founding father of the Communist movement and is regarded as one of the greatest thinkers of all time not only in the communist countries, but also in most American colleges and universities, where he is Required Reading in many sociology, history, economics, and philosophy courses. Karl Marx (1818-1883), of course, was a friend of paper money. He held that a central bank empowered to emit paper money and compel the people to use it was essential to government's control of individual property.
We don't have to estimate how many copies of Roger Sherman's only book there are in existence. There are considerably fewer than 500 million. In fact, there are only two. Only two copies of A CAVEAT AGAINST INJUSTICE left in the world. Think about it. Five HUNDRED MILLION that say paper money is good vs two that say paper money is evil.
Admitted, other people have written that paper money is evil.But they weren't the Framer of the United States Constitution's monetary clauses.
The Spencer Judd edition of A CAVEAT AGAINST INJUSTICE is the first known public presentation of this vital book after more than 200 years of undeserved obscurity.
A CAVEAT AGAINST INJUSTICE or an Inquiry into the Evils of a Fluctuating Medium of Exchange written by the man who was responsible for Article 1 Section 10 of the United States Constitution, Roger Sherman"
Any student of the economic system of the United States ought to be familiar with United States monetary law. Since all laws in this country must flow in pursuance of the United States Constitution, the student should base his study of monetary law on the economic provisions contained in the Constitution.
It's not widely known that the Constitution deals with
economics. Indeed, most people are surprised to learn that the sole purpose of
the Constitutional Convention, as described by Alexander Hamilton in a report to Congress
in 1786 recommending that there be a convention was
to take into consideration the trade and commerce of the United States.
What was wrong with trade and commerce in the United States? They were being twisted all out of shape by an inflating balloon of an elastic currency, the very stuff the Federal Reserve provides today.
Our first constitution, the Articles of Confederation (1781), was severely deficient in the economic rights department. The Articles empowered Congress to emit a paper currency, while allowing the states to retain their power to make this paper a legal tender in payment of debts, that is, to compel people to use the stuff. The result? A warping of personal and business relations in the United States that drove George Washington (and God knows how many other folks) to depression and nervous exhaustion. Suffering the compounded agonies inflicted by a paper monetary system of uncontrollable value fluctuations. Washington wrote these dismal words to James Madison on the eve of the Convention:
"The wheels of government are clogged, and we are descending into the vale of confusion and darkness. No day was ever more clouded than the present. We are fast verging into anarchy and confusion."
The deliberate purpose of the 1787 Constitutional Convention was to stop the ravages of a fluctuating medium of exchange by obligating government to maintain reliable medium of exchange. President Andrew Jackson validated this fact in his Eighth Annual Message to Congress, December 5th, 1836, just 47 years after the Constitution was ratified by the states.
...It was the purpose of the convention to establish a currency consisting of the precious metals. These were adopted by a permanent rule excluding the use of a perishable medium of exchange, such as of certain agricultural commodities recognized by the statutes of some States as tender for debts, or the still more pernicious expedient of paper currency.
The "permanent rule excluding the use of the pernicious expedient of paper currency" is an exquisitely framed piece of legislative machinery. In article I Section 8, the Framers gave Congress the power
...to coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standards of Weights and Measures.
In Article I Section 10, the Framers denied the states any power to coin and issue money. More importantly, they denied the states the power to ordain-in payment of debts-the use of anything but the money Congress was empowered to coin. The substance of that coin is named in the denial:
No State shall coin Money, emit Bills of Credit, make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in payment of Debts.
Through the Framers, then, the People of the United States appointed the states to be custodians of the American monetary system. If Congress ceased coining gold and silver, causing gold and silver coin to stop circulating, the states would be unable to compel their citizens to pay any debts, public or private. It was the responsibility of an ever-vigilant union of states to keep Congress coining gold and silver, thereby preserving interstate commerce, preserving the very Union itself.
The power the states had reserved under the Articles of Confederation, the power to make anything a legal tender, is a marvelous power indeed. The power to compel people to accept something of no intrinsic value in exchange for something of value is the power to rob people of their property "secretly," as John Maynard Keynes put in the 1920's, "and unobserved."
The United States Constitution is one of the few written compacts between people and government that actually dragged the power out into the open for all to see and condemn. In the 44th Federalist Paper, James Madison eloquently explained why the States were giving up their power to compel citizens to use either federal or state paper money:
The loss which America has sustained from the pestilent effects of paper money on the necessary confidence between man and man, on the necessary confidence in the public councils, on the industry and morals of the people, and on the character of republican government, constitutes and enormous debt against the States chargeable with this unadvertised measure, which must long remain...an accumulation of guilt, which can be expiated no otherwise than by voluntary sacrifice on the alter of justice of the power which has been the instrument of it.
The states' voluntary sacrifice hastily rescued our forefathers from the vale of confusion and darkness, unclogged the wheels of government, brightened the day, and restored peace and order. A mere nine months after the " permanent rule excluding the pernicious expedient of paper currency" was ratified by the states, the December 16th 1789 edition of The Pennsylvania Gazette was able to say:
Since the federal constitution has removed all danger of our having a paper tender, our trade is advanced fifty percent. Our monied people can trust their cash abroad, and have brought their coin into circulation.
And in June, 1790, a little more than a year after ratification, a much happier George Washington was able to write his friend the Marquis de LaFayette that
Our revenues have been considerable more productive than it was imagined they would be. I mention this to show the spirit of enterprise that prevails.
"The writers of the constitution knew exactly what they
were doing when they wrote in Article I Section 10 paragraph 1 'No state shall...
make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts. ' People
able to barter with gold and silver coin control government and are free. Loss
of the right to trade in gold and silver coin enslaves people to the creators of psychological 'money.'":
-Merrill Jenkins, Sr.,
The Greatest Hoax on Earth
"The voice of legislators is a living voice."
-10 COKE 101 (England)
Thanks for the very informative post! You will have the last laugh when it happens!
You know if this all comes to past,everyone will be broke anyway. No one will have a cent. All I know I am trying to make myself and family as unreliant on anything. We will grow our own food and can it, sew our own clothes, and do what we have to do. Can you imagine if this situation happens what chaos there would be? Unbelievable.
Good for you! The family farm was the salvation of the 1930s. It could not fill that role today. Suburbia would be a nightmare . . . but then again, my backyard is pretty big! Just got to plant some potatoes.
Thats a pretty good idea so that when the time comes you and your family will be well prepared and you will reduce the chaos in your lives at least.
Were there chaos, methinks our currency would go onto the "lead standard."
|
What was wrong with trade and commerce in the United States? They were being twisted all out of shape by an inflating balloon of an elastic currency, the very stuff the
Federal Reserve provides today.
It was supposed to. The "inflating balloon" was caused by a hostile act by an enemy during wartime, specifically by the British general Howe, who took over New York City and made it a center for British counterfeiting. He did this in a deliberate attempt to debase the currency that had been issued by the Continental Congress, which was being used to finance the war. Howe was trying to make it impossible for Washington to pay his men, or to buy supplies. Judd is attempting to portray a hostile act of war as the normal thing that always happens in the presence of paper money. In other words, he is attempting to deceive us. He is hoping that we do not know about the massive counterfeting of Continentals by the British. He is hoping we will think this is just an inevitable consequence of paper money. This does not bode well for the quality of any more pearls of wisdom attributable to Mr. Judd.
Listen to this high-sounding crap. All we have to do to preserve the very Union itself is to keep using gold and silver for money. Nice words, but anyone who believes what they say must have missed the part about the War Between the States. I'm sorry, but soaring rhetoric is not a substitute for substantive argument. I'm not going to bother with the rest of the 'gold bug' stuff. It's not going to happen. The people who insist that we're all doomed without gold-backed money will continue to howl about it, and nothing is ever going to change their minds. I think it's a dumb way to expend energy when there is so much else going on that is of far more import, but that's just me. Perhaps I can peel off a slice of the gold bugs by appealing to their belief that if everything goes to hell, only the people with gold will have anything that can be used for money. Consider this: everything has gone to hell. Whatever used to be money is worthless. You come to me and offer me one ounce of gold for my bag of beans. I shoot you, take your gold, and keep the beans. Which was more important: crusading for gold-backed money, or keeping the UN and the gun-control nuts from disarming you on the way to Armageddon? Ya gotta pick your battles. |
Were there chaos, methinks our currency would go onto the "lead standard."
Bingo.
Any thoughts on #113?
You have something against the Founding Father that mandated an economic standard?
Cat got your tongue?
|
You have something against the Founding Father that mandated an economic standard?
Otherwise, I'll stick with saying it was high-sounding crap. |
Bingo.
Either the Constitution is the supreme law of the land or it's not. We live by the mandates in the Articles or we don't. If voters subscribe to your understanding, you and your ilk will allow the Socialist/Marxist/Communists Bastards to take over!!!
Sorry Nicky, Me and a million others will not allow that!
If Ratification of the Constitution was the Grand Finale in Roger Sherman's career, certainly A CAVEAT AGAINST INJUSTICE was the Overture, and both are made of the same thematic material: a quest for economic security in the Law. You could have sat down with Sherman at the close of the Convention and asked him what the purpose of Article 1 Section 10 Paragraph 1 was and he would have handed you a copy of this little book.
Yet, solid as they are, Sherman's ideas on money were ridiculed by many contemporaries as crankish. We've seen how they were rejected by the court in in New Milford. Who but a fool would dare suggest that the states make nothing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts when there was so little gold and sliver to be had? Surely, Sherman must have heard " There's not enough gold to go around, is there?" as often as he heard " Since all the gold's in Europe, what will prevent the Europeans from flooding the market, and getting our property for nothing?"
Those questions were answered by history: it is a matter of record that after no state could make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts, the United States became the world's largest depository of gold and silver while simultaneously becoming the most productive nation in the history of the world.
Roger Sherman had predicted events with perfect accuracy in the closing paragraphs of CAVEAT:
So long as we part with our most valuable Commodities for such Bills of Credit as are no Profit; but rather a Cheat, Vexation and Snare to us, and become a Medium whereby we are continually cheating and wronging one another in our Dealings and Commerce, and so long as we import so much more foreign Goods than are necessary, and keep so many Merchants and Traders employed to procure and deal them out to us...I say as long as these Things are so we shall spend great Part of our Labour and Substance for that will not profit us. Whereas if these Things were reformed, the Provisions and other Commodities which we might have to export yearly, and which other Governments are dependant [sic] upon us for, would procure us God And Silver abundantly sufficient for a Medium of Trade. And we might be as independent, flourishing and happy a Colony as nay in the British Dominions.
Compare this prediction with President Washington's jubilant address to both houses of Congress on December 8th, 1795, six years after the states had been forced onto a strict diet of gold and silver coin:
Our agriculture, commerce, and manufacture prosper beyond former example...Every part of the Union displays indications of rapid and various improvements, and with burdens so light as scarcely to be perceived; with resources fully adequate to our present exigencies; with governments founded on the genuine principles of rational liberty, and with mild and wholesome laws; is it too much to say, that our country exhibits a spectacle of national happiness never surpassed, if ever before equaled?
Whether you're a student of monetary law or just a participant in what Charles Riely calls " the Culture of Freedom," I pray that you'll read Roger Sherman's lost masterpiece time and time again, marking it, inwardly digesting it.
I hope you'll show it to people who have to be shown things before they'll believe. I hope you'll use it to demonstrate to skeptical neighbors as well as attorneys, both official and private, that it was the resolute intent of the Framers of the Constitution to do away with a fluctuating medium of exchange for the very reasons Roger Sherman sets down in his wondrous little document.
In A CAVEAT AGAINST INJUSTICE, our forgotten Framer is warning us (caveat is Latin for "warning") that the form of money Congress (but no state legislature) has declared "legal tender," this monetized debt issued and regulated by " Governments who have no Right of Jurisdiction over us," is evil; and let me remind you that "evil" means "morally bad or wrong; wicked; malevolent; sinful; causing an undesirable condition, as ruin, injury, pain, harmful, injurious, undesirable, infamous; that which is destructive or corruptive". If the money-" that whereby other things are valued"-is evil, how can the things it values be good? Indeed, an evil medium of exchange colors everything evil. Just look around.
What passes for money in 1982 (1996) is as evil, as unpredictable, as damnable as Rhode Island Bills of Credit in a 1751 Connecticut dry goods store.
Today's official medium of exchange is " unjust weights and measures, both which are condemn'd by the Laws of GOD and Man." It is money deliberately designed to "take away Men's Estates and wrong them of their just and righteous Dues without either Law or Reason." All these charges are proved every minute of every day.
The remedy is contained in the Law.
By Law, the states have no Constitutional authority whatsoever to participate in a monetary system comprised of bills not redeemable unit for unit in gold and silver coin. In fact, any state court, judge, or ministerial officer who participates in a compulsory fluctuating medium of exchange is "obliging Men to part with their Estates for that which is worth nothing in it self."
The pages of THE MAIN STREET JOURNAL (a monthly publication that was put out by Frederick Tupper Saussy before his exile from the United States) tell monthly of the thousands of Americans who have begun withholding public dues to their states, countries, and municipalities until such time as Congress once again coins that which the states can make tender in payment of debts. Although many officials have respected this claim of right, it saddens me to report that others have worked extreme hardship on citizens who assert economic rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Why? Do these officers feel threatened? Are they frightened? If they are merely skeptical that the Constitution was designed to crush a monetary system identical to ours today, they need A CAVEAT AGAINST INJUSTICE.
As they read,they will hear the convincing voice of the Legislator himself declare that a monetary system comprised of a fluctuating medium of exchange such as ours today is "an Iniquity not to be countenanced, but rather to be punished by the Judges."
It is a living voice of the man whom Thomas Jefferson declared "Never said a foolish thing in his life."
-Frederick Tupper Saussy
Sewanee, Tennessee, April, 1982
Read'em if you can comprehend:
§1 Forasmuch, as there have many Disputes arisen of late concerning the Medium of Exchange in this Colony, which have been occasioned chiefly by Reason of our having such large Quantities of Paper Bills of Credit on some of the Neighbouring Governments, passing in Payments among us, and some of those Governments having issued much larger sums of Bills than were necessary to supply themselves witha competent Medium of Exchange, and not having supplied their Treasuries with any Fund for the maintaining the Credit of such Bills; they have therefore been continually depreciating and growing less in their Value, and have been the principal Means of the Depreciation of the Bills of Credit emitted by this Colony, by their passing promiscuously with them; and so have been the Occasion of Much Embarrasment and Injustice, in the Trade and Commerce of the Colony, and many People and especially Widows and Orphans have been great Sufferers thereby.
§2 But our Legislature having at length taken effectual Care to prevent further Depreciation of the Bills of this Colony, and the other Governments not having taken the prudent Care, their Bills of Credit are still sinking (1) in their Value, and have in Fackt sunk much below the Value of the Bills of this Colony.
§3 Yet some People among us, by long Custom, are so far prejudiced in Favour of a sinking Medium, and others not being really sensible of the true State of the Case, are inclined to think that Bills of Credit on the neighbouring Governments ought to be a legal Tender in Payments in this Colony for all Debts due by Book and otherwise wheere there is no special contract expressly mentioning some other Currency, and others being of a different Opinion, the Disputes have been carried on so far, as to occasion some Expence in the Law, and may be likely to occasion much more, unless prevented by those Prejudices being some way removed. And since it is a a Cause wherin every one is more or less interested, I have ventured to shew my Opinion, with a sincere Desire to have Peace and Justice maintained and promoted in the Colony. Not desiring any Person to approve of my Observations any farther than he finds them agreeable to the Principles of Justice and right Reason.
§4 Suppose a Man comes to a Trader's Shop in this Colony to buy Goods, and the Trader sells him a certain Quantity of Goods and tells him the Price is som many Pounds, Shillings and Pence, (let it be more or less) to be paid at the Expiration of one Year, from that Time, and the Man receives the Goods but there [sic] is nothing said either by Seller or Buyer, what Currency it is to be paid in, but the Goods are charged according to the Value of Bills of Credit Old Tenor on this Colony.
§5 Now I Query what the Creditor has a Right to demand for a Debt so contracted; or what the Debtor can oblige him to accept in Payment?
§6 The Creditor says, that the Debt being contracted in the Colony of Connecticut, he ought to have what is known by the Laws of said Colony to be Money: And that he has no Right to demand any thing else.
§7 The Debtor says, That Bills of Credit on the neighbouring Governments have for many Years passed promiscuously with the Bills of Credit on this Colony as Money in all Payments, (except special Contracts) and that People in general where the Contracts ly at large have expected, and do still expect, that any of the Bills of Credit on any of the Governments in New-England, that have obtained a Currency in this Colony will answer in Payment, and in as much as the Creditor did not give him any Notice to the contrary, when he bought the Goods, therefore he thinks that such Bills of Credit ought to be accepted in Payment for the aforesaid Debt.
§8 And altho' there is no particular Statute in this Colony, that such Bills of Credit shall be a legal Tender in Payments of Money: Yet the Practice has been so universal for so long a Time, adnd the Creditor himself has both received and pass'd them as Money constantly without making Exceptions against them 'till this Debt was contracted, and for many Years all Demands on Book Debts have been for Old Tenor Money indifferently, without Distiction of Colonies, and Judgements in all Courts have been given thereon accordingly: And any of the aforesaidBills of Credit have pass'd in Payment to satisfy all Judgements, so obtain'd and this universal Custom, the Debtor saith, ought to be esteemed as common Law and ought not without some special Reason to be set aside, and that in this Case there is nothing special; and therefore the Creditor ought not to make Demand or obtain Judgement different from the common Custom of the Colony.
§9 In Answer to this the Creditor saith, that altho' Bills of Credit on the neighbouring Governments have for a Number of Years been pass'd and receiv'd in Payments: Yet it has been only by the voluntary Consent of the Persons receiving them, and not because they were under any Obligation to receive them; and that it is no Argument that a Person shall be obliged to receive any Species where it won't answer his End, because in Time past he has receiv'd it when it would answer.
§10 And the Creditor furthur saith, that such Bills of Credit are of no intrinsick Value, and their Extrinsical Value is fluctuating and very uncertain, and therefore it would be unjust that any Person should be obliged to receive them in Payment as Money in this Colony, (since neither the Colony nor any of the Inhabitants thereof are under any Obligation either to Refunds said Bills or to maintain the Credit of them) for Money ought to be something of certain Value, it being that whereby other Things are to be valued. (2)
§11 And I think it is a Principle that must be granted that no Government has Right to impose on its Subjects any foreign Currency to be received in Payments as Money which is not of intrinsick Value; unless such Government will assume and undertake to secure and make Good to the Possesor of such Currency the full Value which they oblige him to receive it for. Because in so doing they would oblige Men to part with their Estates for that which is worth nothing in it self and which they don't know will ever procure him any Thing.
§12 And Rhode-Island Bills of Credit have been so far from being of certain Value and securing to the Possessor the Value that they were first stated at, that they have depreciated almost four seventh Parts in nine Years last past, as appears by their own Acts of Assembly.
§13 For in the year 1743, it appears by the Face of the Bills then emitted that Twenty-seven Shillings Old-Tenor was equal to one Ounce of Silver. And by an Act of their General Assembly pass'd in March last, they stated Fifty-four Shilling Old-Tenor Bills equal to one Ounce of Silver, which sunk their Value one half. And by another Act in June last, (viz. 1751) they stated Sixty-four Shillings in their Old-Tenor Bills equal to one Ounce of Silver. And by another Act in August last they gave Order and Direction to the Courts in that Colony to make Allowance to the Creditors in making up Judgement from Time to Time as the Bills shall depreciate for the Future, which shews that they expect their Bills of Credit to depreciate for the Future.
§14 And since the Value of The Bills of Credit depend wholly on the Rate at which they are stated and on the Credit of the Government by whom they are emitted and that being the only Reason and Foundation upon which they obtained their first Currency and by which the same has been upheld ever since their first being current and therefor e when the Publick Faith and Credit of such Government is violated, then the Reason upon which such Bill obtained their Currency ceases and there remains no Reason why they should be any longer current.
§15 And this I would lay down as a Principle that can't be denied that a Debtor ought not to pay any Debts with less Value than was contracted for, without the Consent or against the Will of the Creditor.
§16 And the Creditor further saith, that his accepting Rhode-Island Bills of Credit when they stood stated equal to Silver at Twenty-seven Shillings an Ounce, can be no Reason that he should receive them at the same Value when they are stated equal to Silver at Fifty-four Shillings an Ounce, and still to receive them at the same Rate when they are so reduced down that Sixty-four Shillings is equal to but one Ounce of Silver, and whoever does receive them so must not only act without, but against Reason.
§17 And the Debtor can't possibly plead with (3) any Truth that he expected to pay in Rhode-Island Bills of Credit at their present Value and under their present Circumstances, (any Debts contracted before the aforesaid Acts of Rhode Island were published) because there was no such Thing (as those Bills are under their present Circumstances) existing at the Time of Contract, for as was observ'd before, the Value of such Bills of Credit depend wholly upon the Rate at which they are stated and on the Credit of the Government by whom they are emitted, and a Bill of Credit for the same Sum that is stated equal to Silver at Twenty-seven Shillings an Ounce, must be of more than double the Value of one stated equal to Silver at Sixty-four Shillings an Ounce if the Credit of the Emitter may be depended on: But if the Emitter's Credit can't be depended on then neither of the Bills aforesaid are of any Value, because it is evident that no Bills of Credit have any Value in themselves, but are given to secure something of intrinsick Value, to the Posessor.
§18 So that the Arguments draw from Custom are of no Force, because the Reasons upon which that Custom were grounded do now cease.
§19 I grant that if any Thing whose Value is intrinsical and invariable the same should obtain a Currency as a Medium of Exchange for a great Number of Years in any Colony, it might with some Reason be urg'd that it ought to be accepted in Payments for Debts where there is no special Agreement for any other Species.(4)
§20 But if what is us'd as a Medium of Exchange is fluctuating in its Value it is no better than unjust Weights and Measures, both which are condemn'd by the Laws of GOD and Man, and therefore the longest and most universal Custom could never make the Use of such a Medium either lawful or reasonable.
§21 Now suppose that Gold or Silver Coines that pass current in Payments at a certain Rate by Tale (5) should have a considerable Part of their Weight filed or clipp'd off will any reasonable Man judge that they ought to pass for the same Value as those of full Weight?
§22 But the State of R...I...d Bills of Credit is much worse than that of Coins that are clipp'd, because what is left of those Coins is of intrinsick Value: But the General Assembly of R...I...d having depreciated their Bills of Credit have thereby violated their Promise from Time to Time, and there is just Reason to suspect their Credit for the Future for the small Value which they now promise for said Bills, and they have not only violated their Promise as to the Value, pretended to be secured to the Posessor by said Bills; but also as to the Time of calling them in and paying the same, they have lengthened out the Time Fifteen Years.
§23 So that if the Posessor must be kept out of the Use of his Money until that Term is expired (and the Bills secure nothing to him sooner.) One Ounce of Silver paid down now, would be worth more than Seven pounds Ten Shillings in such Bills of Credit computing the Interest at 6 per Cent per Annum.
§24 These Things considered, can any reasonable Man think that such Bills of Credit (or rather of no Credit) ought to be a legal Tender in Payment of Money in this Colony for Debts, for which the Debtor received Species of much more Value than those Bills provided the Creditor could get the full Value of them in Silver that they are now stated at.
§25 For it must be remembered that according to the State of the Case now in Question the Goods were charged according to the Value of Old-Tenor Bills of this Colony. Wherefore upon the whole it appears that it would be evidently unjust to impose Rhode-Island Bills of Credit in payment for such a Debt, or any other in this Colony, unless the Creditor obliged himself by a special Agreement to receive them in Payment.
§26 And if he had agreed to receive them in Payment for Debts contracted any Time between last March and June it would be unjust to oblige him to take them without three Shillings on the Pound Allowance, for the General Assembly of Rhode-Island depreciated them so much in June below both their current and stated Value in March preceding.
§27 And to oblige People to receive them without such Allowance in this Colony; would be, to more dishonest than they are in Rhode-Island Colony for they are obliged by Law to make Allowance for the Depreciation.
§28 But in as much as we are not under the Jurisdiction of Rhode-Island Government and therefore can take no Benefit by equitable Acts, I suppose that according to the Rules of the Law, upon a Contract made in this Colony for the Payment of Bills of Credit on the Colony of Rhode-Island or any of the neighbouring Governments,
§29 if the Debtor could not produce such Bills under the same Circumstances that they were at the Time of Contract, the Courts would assess Damages for Connecticut Money, according to the Value of such Bills at the Time of Contract.
§30 And the Reason is, because if on the one Hand all such Bills should be called in and burnt between the Time of Contract and the Time of Payment it would be unreasonable to oblige the Debtor to an impossibility, and on the other Hand if there should between the Time of Contract and the Time of Payment be an Act pass'd that all such Bills should be brought into the Treasurer to be redeem'd by a certain Time or else be Outlawed and rendered of no Value and that Time should be expired before the Time of Payment, or if by an Act of Assembly they should be depreciated and sunk one half or two thirds of their Value, it would be unreasonable that the Creditor should be thereby defrauded of his just Due and lose so much of his Estate.(6)
§31 But to impose Rhode-Island Bills of Credit in Payments for Debts in this Colony when the Creditor never agreed to take them, and that without any Allowance for the Depreciation, would be to take away Men's Estates and wrong them of their just and righteous Dues without either Law or Reason.
§32 And instead of having our Properties defended and secured to us by the Protection of the Government under which we live; we should be always exposed to have them taken from us by Fraud at the Pleasure of other Governments, who have no Right of Jurisdiction over us.
§33 And according to this Argument, if Rhode-Island General Assembly has been pleased last June to have stated their Old-Tenor Bills equal to Silver at Forty-eight Pounds Twelve Shillings an Ounce, instead of Sixty-four Shillings, and to have cut off the Value of them Eighteen Shillings on the Pound, instead of Three Shillings, all Creditors in this Colony would thereby have been necessitated to lose Ninety Pounds out of every Hundred Pounds of their Debts which were then out standing, for if they could take away one Sixth Part of their Value and reduce them so much below the Old-Tenor Bills of this Colony and the Creditor be notwithstanding obliged to receive them without Allowance, by the Rule they might have taken away three Quartes of Nine Tenths or indeed the whole, and the Creditor have had no more Remedy than he has now.(7)
§34 And the Estates of poor Widows and Orphans must according to this Principle in the same unjust Manner be taken away from them and given to others that have no Right to them, (for what the Creditor loses in this way the Debtor gains becaue the more the Bills of Creditdepreciate the less Value the Debtor can produce them for) and according to the Debtor's Arguement the Executive Courts in this Colony must give Judgement in Favour of all this Fraud and Iniquity at least, 'till there is some special Act of Assembly to order them to the contrary; (8) but I believe that every honest Man of Common Sense, upon mature Consideration of the Circumstances of the Case, will think that this is an Iniquity not to be countenanced, but rather to be punished by the Judges.
§35 But in Answer to what is said concerning Demands being made for Old-Tenor Money indifferently and the Courts giving Judgement accordingly. The Creditor saith that Phrase in all Demands made in this Colony ought to be understood to be the Old-Tenor Money of this Colony, and no other, for there never was any Law in this Colony that Bills of Credit on the neighbouring Governments should be a legal Tender in Payments of Money, and I have observed before that it would be unreasonable, that any such Foreign Currency should be imposed as Money, and the same Phrase is us'd in taxing Bills of Cost in the Executive Courts, but it is understood to be the Old-Tenor Money of this Colony only, for a Thousand Pounds in Bills of Credit on the neighbouring Governments would not be sufficient in the Law to satisfy a Bill of Cost of Twenty Shillings Old-Tenor.
§36 And the General Assembly of this Colony have sufficiently declared that they don't Esteem such Bills of Credit as Money, and that no Person ought to be obliged to receive them as such. In that, they themselves will not receive them for their Wages, neither do they oblige any other Person whose Fees or Wages are stated by Law to receive them, but have made Provision how they shall be paid exclusive of such Bills.
§37 And as to the Objection that they have been receiv'd in Payment to satisfy all Judgements given as aforesaid, the Creditor faith, that it was only by the same reasons that they should be received now at the same Value as Bills of Credit on this Colony that there was formerly because it is evident that there is now a real Difference in their Values.
§38 For by a Law of the Province of the Massachusets-Bay, their Bills of Old-Tenor are stated equal to Silver at Fifty Shillings an Ounce and Seven Shillings and Six Pence are equal to One Shilling Proclamation Money, and the Executive Courts in this Colony reckon Eight Shillings Old-Tenor Bills of this Colony equal to One Shilling Proclamation Money which is equal to Silver at Fifty-four Shillings Old-Tenor an Ounce.
§39 And by an Act of Rhode-Island General Assembly Sixty four Shillings of their Old-Tenor Bills is stated equal to one Ounce of Silver, at which Rate nine Shillings and Six pence is equal to but One Shilling Proclamation Money, whereas three Years ago the Bills of Old-Tenor on all the three Governments aforesaid were of equal Value.
§40 And since it appears, that there is such a Difference in the stated Value of the aforesaid Bills of Credit, no Man can with any Propriety be said to make them all without Distinction, a Standard to value Things by; for a Man could afford to sell any Goods or Merchandize for a less Sum in Old-Tenor Bills of the Massachusets-Bay, than for the Old-Tenor Bills of this Colony and he could afford to sell Goods for a less Sum by 15 per Cent for the Old-Tenor Bills of this Colony, than for the Old-Tenor Bills on Rhode-Island Colony.
§41 And to say that an Accompt (9) is charged in Old-Tenor Money indifferently of this and the neighbouring Governments, is to say that 7s.-6d. and 8s. and 9s.-6.d are one and the same Sum, or that there is no Difference between Fifty and Fifty-four, or between Fifty-four and Sixty-four Q.E.D.
§42 And since it appears that it would be evidently absurd to make a Demand for old-Tenor Money indifferently of this and the neighbouring Governments, it follows that all Demands made for Old-Tenor Money in this Colony must be for the Money of this Colony exclusive of the Old-Tenor of the neighbouring Governments, or else for the Old-Tenor Money of some one of the other Governments exclusive of the Old-Tenor of this and the rest.
§43 And since nothing but a special Contract can intitle any Person to demand the Money of any other Government, for a Debt contracted and demanded in this Colony: It necessarily follows, that all Demands for Debts due by Book, where the Contract lyes at large must be for the Money of this Colony only.
§44 What I would be understood to mean by Old-Tenor Money of the Colony of Connecticut is, whatsoever is established by Law in said Colony to pass as, or in Lieu of Money, rated according to its Value in Old-Tenor Bills on said Colony, and I supposed that the Words (Old-Tenor) when us'd in Contracts are universally understood to be intended only to assertain the Value of the Sum to which they are affixed and they must be so understood when the Executive Courts tax Bills of Cost in Old-Tenor Money, for they have no Right neither do they mean to exclude Bills of the New-Tenor, or any of those Coins established by Law (to pass in Payment for Fees) from being a sufficient Tender in Payment of such Costs.
§45 And now I have gone through with what I first proposed, But perhaps some, may be ready to say, that we are sensible that it is of bad Consequence to have a fluctuating Medium of Exchange, but what can be done to Remedy it?
§46 I answer take away the Cause, and the Effect will necessarily cease.(10)
§47 but it may be further objected, that if it were not for the Bills of Credit on the neighbouring Governments, we should have no Money to Trade with, and what should we do for a Medium of Exchange? or how could we live without? (11)
§48 To this I answer, that if that were indeed the Case, we had better die in a good Cause than live in a bad one. But I apprehend that the Case in Fact is quite the reverse, for we in this Colony are seated on a very fruitful Soil, the Product whereof, with our Labour and Industry and the Divine Blessng thereon, would sufficiently furnish us with and procure us all the Necessaries of Life and as good a Medium of Exchange as any People in the World have or can desire.
§49 But so long as we part with our most valuable Commodities for such Bills of Credit as are no Profit; but rather a Cheat, Vexation and Snare to us, and become a Medium whereby we are continually cheating and wronging one another in our Dealings and Commerce.
§50 And so long as we import so much more foreign Goods than are necessary, and keep so many Merchants and Trader employed to procure and deal them out to us: Great Part of which, we might as well make among ourselves; and another great Part of which, we had much better be without, especially the Spiritous Liquors of which vast Quantities are consumed in this Colony every Year, unnecessarily to the great Destruction of the Estates, Morals, Health and even the Lives of many of the Inhabitants.
§51 I say so long as these Things are so we shall spend great Part of our Labour and Substance for that which will not profit us.
§52 Whereas if these Things were reformed, the Provisions and other Commodities which we might have to export yearly, and which other Governments are dependant upon us for, would procure us Gold and Silver abundantly sufficient for a Medium of Trade. And we might be as independent, flourishing and happy a Colony as any in the British Dominions.
§53 And with Submission I would humbly beg Leave to propose it to the wise Consideration of the Honourable General Assembly of this Colony; whether it would not be conductive to the welfare of the Colony to pass some act to prevent the Bills last emitted by Rhode-Island Colony from obtaining a Currency among us.
§54 And to appoint some reasonable Time (not exceeding the Term that our Bills of Credit are allowed to pass) after the Expiration of which none of the Bills of Credit on New Hampshire or Rhode-Island, shall be allowed to pass in this Colony, that so People having previous Notice thereof may order their Affairs so as to get rid of such Bills to the best Advantage that they can before the Expiration of such Term.
§55 And whether it would not be very much for the Publick Good to lay a large Excise upon all Rum imported into this Colony or distilled herein, thereby effectually to restrain the excessive use thereof, which is such a growing Evil among us and is leading to almost all other Vices.
§56 And I doubt not but that if those two great Evils that have been mentioned were restrained we should soon see better Times.
The example story to which I refer was, as I recall, in late 97 or early 98. I assert that treasury sales across the globe were being used to hold gold prices low, below the cost of production in many cases and that it was being done to mask inflation and preserve the perception of currency value.
So you are saying that inflation was the problem being addressed.
The British Treasury announced a large sale and the amount to be sold right on the heels of a similar sale in Zurich. Africans complained that they might be unable to make payments on IMF/WorldBank debt without a rise in commodity prices.
If commodity prices were low, that means deflation was the problem. Even conspiracy theories must be consistent.
|
Any thoughts on #113?
I that think money as a store of value, except over the shortest time periods, is obsolete. We have many alternative ways of 'parking' wealth that are far superior, in almost every way, to putting currency under a mattress and leaving it there for years. That's why I don't consider a low, but continuous, inflation rate to be a big deal. In fact I see it as a benefit, because it penalizes people for keeping what could be investment capital locked up doing nothing. You raise an interesting question about money as a medium of exchange. What exactly is "exchanged" when I go to the phone company web site and pay my bill via electronic transfer? Some bits fly around, some bits on the hard drive at the bank that holds my account balance get changed, and some other bits on another hard drive at the phone company's bank change by an equal amount. Nothing physical gets moved. Was there "money" involved in that? Only as a unit of account; there does not appear to be any medium of exchange used at all; only information about what would have been exchanged, had there been an exchange. You raise the issue of barter transactions, where even the unit-of-account function of money disappears. I think that may be the last function of money to go away, just because barter is so often impractical. One of the attractions of having a "money" is that it is universally accepted in payment for anything, which greatly reduces trade friction. I don't think we would want to lose that benefit. On the other hand, I suppose we could conceive of elaborate networks of trading computers that could, on the fly, route a transaction through a series of barter orders so as to effect, for example, the delivery of a car to a doctor who sent his receiveables to a speculator who sent 3,000 shares of Yoyodyne to a guy in Japan who provided a shipment of rice to a factory in China that produced parts for the car company. There would be times when it might take hours to arrange a complete circuit of trades that satisfied everybody, but in theory it could be done. It would be funny if one impact of the Internet turned out to be a return to the barter system. |
"The socialists have wormed their way into every aspect of our institutions."
Even worse. They have wormed there way into the beliefs of about 99% of our minds.
The Ghanian mine operator went bust on his options. His mine was purchased not surprisingly by a British firm for pence on the pound, another wondrous deal done by those of stirling character. American gold traders (as I recall Shearson Lehman and Goldman Sachs), buyers of many of those contracts, cried foul and demanded a bailout, which they got. The mine operator wasn't so "lucky."
This is indication to me of several things.
It's an indication to me that the Ghana mine operator wasn't very good at using options to hedge his business. What about all the other mines that use the same strategy, but didn't go out of business?
And why would anyone want to use such shady methods to acquire a gold mine? They're relatvely cheap anyway, and as far as businesses go they've been a terrible investment.
I love how you play Straw Man by putting words in my mouth. You may prove your case to yourself, but, typical of your ilk, that is all you accomplish.
So you are saying that inflation was the problem being addressed.
No, masking inflation and minimizing inflation-expctations thereby by maintaining low gold prices and selling that cheap gold to the "right" people, meanwhile make Bubba and Tony look good was the objective set. There was more than one goal here, which is necessary considering the sheer audacity of this scam. You should see how that set of tactics dovetails into the enviro-monsumeantill setasides.
If commodity prices were low, that means deflation was the problem. Even conspiracy theories must be consistent.
Can't even pop a paper bag. Typical. It is you who aren't consistent. The Bubba/Tony/Gherhard/Lionel/WassisnamefrumSpain axis at least was: criminal commodity price manipulation and consolidation of resource control by enviroscam/GobbleGrubbamint for the benefit of bankers, "non-profit" foundation holders and the like. They were good at it.
Im not an economist, but it makes since that those who have the money make the rules.The money has been lumped into the hands of a few,through it they control any important thing or just about in the country.So fiat money as its called, has led to the decline in America,from a moral standpoint and is also the biggest reason that most of us have taxation with very little representation.The fiat money is the conroling ruling factor of our society.
Ok lets discuss houses Banks have whats called a statuatory reserve deposit,a percentage they must keep to avoid problems in case of a run on money say 10 per cent so if someone deposits 10000 they have to keep 1000 in the kitty,so what happens is they lend the 9000 create an account an call it an 'asset',they then lend against the full ten,they now have money created out of thin air just like the Reserve,but what they have in exchange is a real physical asset,your house and when the public perception which is the only thing that makes a $10.00 worth $10.00 changes unfavourably and you need a wheelbarrow of the crap to buy a postage stamp if you haven't paid your mortgage be sure to have a tent(your posts elsewhere indicate your good at identifying smoke and mirrors why the blinkers here?)
"...they collected all our gold certificates and cashed them in"
If I have a ton of gold certificates in my safe (I'm not saying I do or I don't ... only if) ... does that mean I'm rich or have a pile of worthless paper?
You're right the American workers wages has been stagnated for the last 20 or so years and it is all a scam.
The American people want the borders closed off, but the fiat money crowd will continue to let in the workers to keep the low wages in place or possible lower them. They will do this against the American wishes,because when you have all the money you make the rules.That's what fiat represents.
Continue to sit at the feet of Marx, Nicky boy... and ignore the words of Founding Father Roger Sherman.
Constitutionalists Do you have a clue what we are up against?
Actually, at this point you are probably rich. It is more than likely that the gold certificates you have are worth a fortune. This is not because they can be exchanged for gold (though technically you could probably do that), but rather their numismatic value alone would be much higher than the value of the certificates in gold due to their age and historical significance. Gold is fairly cheap right now. Check at your local coin shop.
I that think money as a store of value, except over the shortest time periods, is obsolete.
Paradoxically that is where the few extant currencies derive much of their value; i.e., as reserve currencies. The trend is of course to minimize that non-producing store of what is little more than transaction overhead. Witless the attack of the killer Euros.
You raise an interesting question about money as a medium of exchange.... Only... as a unit of account; does there appear to be any medium of exchange used at all; only information about what would have been exchanged, had there been an exchange... You raise the issue of barter transactions, where even the unit-of-account function of money disappears. I think that may be the last function of money to go away, just because barter is so often impractical. One of the attractions of having a "money" is that it is universally accepted in payment for anything, which greatly reduces trade friction. I don't think we would want to lose that benefit.
This is what I meant by the substitute good of perfect knowledge. People now use money market accounts instead of "cash," an almost perfect substitute. Now they have the option of flexible of shares in index funds. How about a currency based upon that? Would those not be nearly as fungible as a currency? Ah, but that itself carries with it an overhead of transaction cost and distributed risk (as any investment in a store of value is itself a risk). So why not barter on contract options to manage that risk on an individual tolerance of the risk/return balance? Such might be competing currencies in the short term, and, superior to national currencies in that they are probably better secured.
On the other hand, I suppose we could conceive of elaborate networks of trading computers that could, on the fly, route a transaction through a series of barter orders so as to effect, for example, the delivery of a car to a doctor who sent his receiveables to a speculator who sent 3,000 shares of Yoyodyne to a guy in Japan who provided a shipment of rice to a factory in China that produced parts for the car company. There would be times when it might take hours to arrange a complete circuit of trades that satisfied everybody, but in theory it could be done.
It would be funny if one impact of the Internet turned out to be a return to the barter system.
As you know, without the sanctity of private property and the rule of law governing contracts it can't happen. That requires absolute respect for unalienable rights as can only be guaranteed by a network of sovereign governments competing in providing that service. The globalists, in that regard, have it all wrong. I want governments to compete for my business as an individual if you will.
Is the Bible is the inspired word of GOD?
[__] Yes
[__] No
Is the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land?
[__] Yes
[__] No
Thanks, Great Wombat. Would you hold on to them, or cash them in?
Chief, I find that I often agree with you, but I'm a bit baffled by this thread. Even if one were to concede that there are risks inherent in a fiat currency, what alternative is there that is preferable? Some of the worse cases of both inflation and his equally wicked sister deflation took place while we had a gold-backed currency. The entire 2nd-half of the 19th century consisted of inflationary booms and busts every 7 years leading up to the great depression which was effectively a deflationary collapse.
My point? Good question. I'm not sure that I have one, but I think that you can make an argument that we've had a more stable currency and economy since we got off the gold standard than before. Moreover, I think that you can argue that a fiat currency provides an additional incentive to policy makers to not be too avaricious with taxes and spending. Currency markets react viciously to those countries who pursue anti-growth policies in taxes, spending, and regulations (e.g. the downward trend in the euro) relative to other countries. In other words, no one invests in countries where the government acts like Marx wants and their currency collapses. Finally, those who want to have gold-backed currency can still do it on an individual basis by buying a storing gold (or other assets, like property or oil or bullets) with their excess cash, so how are they harmed.
Anyway, I'm always willing to listen to reason so I'd be glad be educated on a preferable system.
That would depend on what kind of price the dealer would give you for them, I don't know if I would part with them right away or wait and see. The numismatic value will be highest (generally) during times of economic prosperity; also the value will usually increase somewhat with time. If they have little sentimental value to you, and you want a new jet-ski, by all means--cash out now. Otherwise, hang on to them, and send your grandkids to college someday down the road. the longer you hold them, the more they will be worth.
This is very important though--the dealer is looking to make a profit from the items he buys from you, so do not assume he has YOUR best interests in mind or that he is offering you a square deal; it is advisable to go to several shops to have your stuff, whatever it may be, appraised--many dealers will do this for free. Alternately, if you believe what you have is VERY old and valuable, there are professional appraisers who do that for a fee,and you can depend on their appraisals. Then you could sell the suckers on ebay.
One more thing. My grandfather died in 1972. He was horrified that the US was off the gold standard and was convinced that a total collapse of the currency and the economy was imminent. In fact, he left me (I was 3 at the time) a bunch of silver ingots so that I'd be on the way to preparedness. He also put a scrapbook together of columns and articles and papers written by those who were convinced that the lack of a gold standard was sure doom for the U.S. I reread his scrapbook about 5 years ago. They all sound exactly like the stuff posted on this thread about 30 years later.
I've pondered over the passage in Exodus about lending to your neighbor and taking his cloak as collateral. Assuming that you take the passage literally, lending for interest is a sin and lending without interest is also a sin if you will require someone to pay you back before they can recover their collateral.
My question is whether it is also a sin to put money into a savings account or a CD? Effectively, you are loaning money to the shareholders of a bank for interest. That seems to be sin number 1. Second, you are empowering the bank to turn around and loan out your deposit to others for interest. Both ways, that is a problem.
Should I take my money out of savings or is there another way to reconcile my finances with a desire to follow G*d's word?
I just wish there was another "New World" to be shipped off to. Where oh where are all the habitable planets to colonize with groups of like minded individuals. We've been -stupidized- out of controlling our own government.
The New World was discovered because the "thinking" people needed to get away from the devious and the indifferent. Well now the thinking people have been cornered and have nowhere else to go. So it is time for the thinking people to stop running and to standup and make a difference....
Well, here's the thing. Yes, if you are an orthodox Jew, following Levitical law, it is forbidden to demand collateral which is the livelihood or shelter of a fellow citizen. However, the lending of money at an interest rate which is not excessive is not forbidden. Collecting money interest from your fellow Jews (countrymen) is also not allowed, but to do so to foreigners is just fine.
This presents a problem to the Christian, however, who is told in the Gospels' parable of the Good Samaritan that essentially everyone is one's neighbor. If everyone is my neighbor, who can I lend money to?
The question then becomes, is the Exodus rule still valid to the Christian? Christians have been very quick to dispense with the Levitical rules on foods and kosher eating, but this is specifically overruled in the New Testament by Peter. Christians have also, however, been quick to dispense with some other regulations, such as the prohibition on wearing fabric of two threads (like wool and flax, or polyester and cotton); there is no direct countermand for this rule in the Bible.
The question of conscience arising from lending money at interest seems more in the line of the second example (wearing mixed cloth) than the first (foods). If a man is dead to sin, however, and lives under grace, how can he return to sin inadvertently (or for that matter, intentionally)? Can one be resurrected into sin? Paul indicates in Romans and Ephesians that Christians are free from the (perfect) Law in its entirety and are free to do good in Christ.
"You come to me and offer me one ounce of gold for my bag of beans. I shoot you, take your gold, and keep the beans. Which was more important: crusading for gold-backed money, or keeping the UN and the gun-control nuts from disarming you on the way to Armageddon? Ya gotta pick your battles. "
Your word count on these anti-Fed threads is probably into the tens of thousands by now. But the above statement will probaby make more people go "hmmmm..." than all the economic theory available among the stacks in the Library of Congress.
The validity of my response would of course depend on which religion you are an adherent of. Excuse me for automatically presuming you to be Christian or Jewish, though your use of Exodus seemed to warrant it, and you are from the US, though my present residence would be misleading, I suppose. I live in Paraguay, but am not a Roman Catholic, as the bulk of the nation is.
I am Christian, though not as good a one as I should be. Thank you very much for your response. You've pointed me towards a couple of lines of inquiry. I guess I just need to study the whole Bible a lot more and try to answer some of these questions on my own.
|
when the public perception which is the only thing that makes a $10.00 worth $10.00 changes unfavourably and you need a wheelbarrow of the crap to buy a
postage stamp if you haven't paid your mortgage be sure to have a tent
Anyway, now I have a house to live in, and I owe the bank $9,000. They have a piece of paper in the drawer that I signed, that says that if I renege on the debt, they can come and take my house. Your next step was that public perceptions, which is what kept a $10 bill worth ten dollars, changes such that it now takes a wheelbarrow full of ten dollar bills to buy a postage stamp. You say I need a tent. I say I take a postage stamp out of my desk, and sell it to somebody for a wheelbarrow full of ten dollar bills. I take 900 of them, I walk into the bank, and I pay off the mortgage. I just bought a house for a postage stamp. Now ask yourself real hard, because this is a really tough question: do you think that the people in this thread who claim that bankers are in favor of inflation, have the slightest idea what they're talking about? |
mediocrity is really cool ... ... I was able to understand what they're talking about in the article and I'm not an economist.
It is true, most Protestant Christians find that solitary Bible study is the best way for them to discover some truths, but most people need some assistance in understanding the finer points of the doctrines therein. The most natural teacher is one's minister or pastor or priest, whichever. The interest/lending issue is one that troubled early church fathers (even until recent times) so it is understandable that laymen and even educated Pastors might find it a hard topic to grasp. It would be a long wait in church to hear a sermon on usury (at least in any denomination I have ever visited).
Jeez, I check out for a day or so, figuring this'll sort of peter out, and look what happens.
I couldn't find the WSJ column you referred to, but I'm going to assume that what Kemp wrote was similar to
this column that he wrote back in March.
In it, Kemp essentially argues that countries ought to abandon floating exchange rates in favor of tying their currencies at fixed rates to some mutually agreed-upon basket of commodities, of which gold is one. What is really odd about this is that Kemp is arguing for this as a means to combat deflation. Which puts him at odds with the crowd here, anyway.
I would point out to Mr. Kemp the following simple facts. Since the US abandoned the partial gold standard in 1971, consumer prices have risen to about 2 1/2 times what they were back then. In other words, what cost you a dollar back in 1971 would cost you about $2.50 now. Or, to put it another way, a dollar today will buy you about four-tenths of what it would have bought you back in 1971. But in that same period since 1971 - and this will hopefully end this nonsense about gold being immune to inflationary pressures - the price of gold has risen tenfold. Or, a dollar today will buy only one-tenth of the gold a dollar would have bought in 1971. Put simply, the price of gold has inflated four times more than the price of everything else since 1971. And they say the dollar is the problem?
The end result is that Kemp is simply wrong about gold as a hedge against deflation. Had the US gone to a full-blown gold standard, the result would have been massive deflation - perhaps the worst deflation since the 1930's.
And the end result of both inflation and deflation is the same, really - people buy less stuff. In the case of inflation, people buy less stuff because, until their wages catch up with prices, stuff is too expensive for them to afford. With deflation, people buy less stuff mainly because they don't have jobs anymore. Oh yeah, sign me up....
As to the plight of the pound, I can't say, since I haven't been following the pound lately.
Look, the final result is that it is true that a government could indeed go hog wild and start printing money like it's going out of style. But when you say that, you are also implicitly recognizing the ability of the government to use fiscal and monetary policy to combat inflation. And, a gold standard has essentially intractable problems - notice how nobody has answered my first objection in my first post, that there isn't enough gold to cover the dollars in circulation.
Of course, there's a way around that problem, but you won't hear it from the gold bugs - the solution is to use a fractional reserve system. Which is what they did back before 1900, and which is exactly what they object to about paper money now. Of course, back before 1900, there really were runs on banks fairly often, so maybe a fractional reserve gold standard isn't such a good idea after all.
The answer, in the end, is not to abandon paper currency in favor of gold. The solution is to have educate yourself and to vote for leaders who have sound fiscal and monetary policies - and after reading Kemp, I'm pretty sure he's not in that camp ;)
Thanks for your advice ... I sold some US gold coins some years ago and got "srewed" by a very reputable dealer, so I understand what you are saying ... and at auction, you could lose your shirt ... ebay might be fun ... if I decide to do that (but there are too many, I think), I'll flag you!
that's an interesting point that even gold is fiat money. But isn't the supply of gold much more stable in that it won't grow much while money can be inflated? My main question is, how is it that unemployment the last 30 years is at historically high levels? And how is it that we've had historically high interest rates the last 30 years? Why must we now put up with inflation whereas before 1913 it was much less troublesome?
You're full of it. Basically, all currency, in its most elemental form is "fiat" currency. What makes gold valuable? because people want it. Gold has no more intrinsic value than iron, or even dirt. Its value is no more psychological (or less) than that of fiat currency. Why is wampum no longer legal tender? Because people dont want it anymore. Of course, pity the poor fool stuck with lots of worthless wampum/Confederate dollars/gold/dollars when it becomes outmoded.
Look, the final result is that it is true that a government could indeed go hog wild and start printing money like it's going out of style. But when you say that, you are also implicitly recognizing the ability of the government to use fiscal and monetary policy to combat inflation.
And there are historical instances of countries that are on the gold standard printing money like crazy anyway when they really need it, as in the case of financing a war.
|
a network of sovereign governments competing in providing that service. The globalists, in that regard, have it all wrong. I want
governments to compete for my business as an individual if you will.
I view consolidation as a method for making sure that any mistake made will be a big mistake that effects everything. |
Gold: Intrinsic value:
Gold = no intrinsic value. Same as paper money. Gold = valuable, because someone will give you something in exchange for it. Same as paper money. Nobody gives things in exchange for gold, then gold = worthless. Same as paper money.
I really don't know how I can make this any simpler.
I just bought a house for a postage stamp. Now ask yourself real hard, because this is a really tough question: do you think that the people in this thread who claim that bankers are in favor of inflation, have the slightest idea what they're talking about?
Maybe bankers really really really really really love stamps. Heck, if they love stamps half as much as gold bugs love gold, it wouldn't be a problem.
Perhaps I need to explain better the ten thousand is deposited 9000 is lent but put in an account and called an asset the bank now can lend against the full ten thousand so were on round two up to 19000 on 10000 deposited and the bank has two properties for 9000 dollars monopoly money.Go to a bank and ask for ten thousand cash see how far you get on the first visit,its all electronic,on computers it doesn't exist physically.For part two IF it takes 900 ten dollar bills to buy a postage stamp then the government is printing or 'creating' more money which leads to inflation,inflation is managed by 1.taxes(thats why there will never be tax relief as the dollars grow so tax grows)or 2.interest rates,you lent 9000 at 150 or whatever payments of X dollars at X percent home loans are variable,the bank will reappraise their real physical security assets and charge accordingly say 2000 percent.
I love how you play Straw Man by putting words in my mouth. You may prove your case to yourself, but, typical of your ilk, that is all you accomplish.
And what ilk would that be? Those who call a conspiracy theorist a conspiracy theorist.
No, masking inflation and minimizing inflation-expctations thereby by maintaining low gold prices and selling that cheap gold to the "right" people, meanwhile make Bubba and Tony look good was the objective set. There was more than one goal here, which is necessary considering the sheer audacity of this scam. You should see how that set of tactics dovetails into the enviro-monsumeantill setasides.
You'd have a point if inflation was measured by gold alone, which it isn't, so you're still left with a contradiction.
Can't even pop a paper bag. Typical. It is you who aren't consistent. The Bubba/Tony/Gherhard/Lionel/WassisnamefrumSpain axis at least was: criminal commodity price manipulation and consolidation of resource control by enviroscam/GobbleGrubbamint for the benefit of bankers, "non-profit" foundation holders and the like. They were good at it.
So has President Bush taken Bubba's place in the conspiracy?
The best proof of the model is biological: diverse, competitive, distributed control architecture, rapidly self-differentiating through mutation, ruthless to inferior trials, and capable of extinction. Add to that prospective intelligence. It's proven; there is no comparison.
Try a wonderful little book on the topic, Laws of the Game, by Manfred Eigen and Ruthild Winkler (the work got Eigen a Nobel prize).
In 1933 President Roosevelt confiscated our gold. In 1965, under President Johnson, silver was removed from coins. And in 1978, during President Carter's administration, Congress took us off the gold standard. The American people were robbed, and did nothing! Even if you have cash, it isn't true money, Read it, it's a Federal Reserve Note. It it not "federal", there is no "reserve" and it's not a "note". Worse yet, it's an unsecured , an indebtedness for which no security has been pledged. It is known as fiat money.
Fiat money.
Paper currency not backed
by gold or silver.
- Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition.
Because it is not backed by anything of true value, our currency can be devalued at any time. In Peru their fiat money was devalued 1,000,000 to 1 overnight! Compared to a dollar in 1900, today's U.S. dollar is worth about five cents. It has been the devaluation of the dollar, not inflation, which has reduced its buying power!
No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.
That seems pretty clear to me. Just how much gold and silver coin did you fork over to your state this past year? Btw, did you have any problems covering the freight charges? Gold and silver carries a lot more weight than does a check or an electronic transfer.
Yeah, you're quite right that Congress was able to do what it has done and go to bed with bankers, but what about the states? Surely you aren't going to tell me that the American people aren't using the very same fiat money that the Federal government uses in order to pay their various states. Surely you aren't going to say that, are you?
...and that's what makes the usage of the Federal Reserve Note in payment of debts unConstitutional. You're quite correct that the Congress could do what it did and team up with a bank, thus forming a cartel, but the states weren't allowed to go along with it. ...yet they have.
Essentially what's happened has been the gradual transformation of America's economy. At first bank notes competed with other bank notes for purchasing power, purchasing power that was always being limited by the requirement that no bank note exist that was not redeemable for face value in Dollars. Then, fractional reserve banking was permitted by the governments involved, and in particular, the Federal government. That produced the "historical" banking panics. However, during the course of that fractional reserve banking, the banks were still having to compete with each other. Thus, much production took place via the availability of loans, many loans backed by nothing.
Ah screw it... Just read my profile. Telling all this to you and the other nay-sayers here in this forum is likely very much a waste of time, and that's why I've found it much simpler to just drop it all in my profile and be done with it. Someone can just simply click on my name now to see where I'm coming from, as opposed to running me ragged jumping through hoops and hurdles trying to win an argument with a brick wall.
Look, my point in all this is not to suggest that gold is worthless, merely that it has no real advantage over paper currency.
True now, but what of then? What of back when, before America's economy was transformed to 100% fiat (which incidentally now works quite well as electronic money.) Oh but I guess history doesn't matter. Hitler just managed to get backing for his Reichsmark just in time, at the very same time that Americans had to turn in all their gold and gold certificates at gunpoint (government enforces laws with guns.) And then America suddenly found itself overseas fighting Hitler and coming out of it with a perceived need for world peace, which of course brought in the UN and (of course) its financial arm.
Hint: The bankers fund BOTH sides. It's a game you see. The people build whatever and then the bankers with the help of the particular government take it away so they have to build more but even cheaper, as they can't afford to do anything otherwise -- that's how competition works you see, but then when that natural competition is locked to an unnatural monopoly credit system, the competition just gets all the more and more fast and furious.
And so the cycle of world economics goes. ...and just you wait till it all goes electronic. Bubba you aint seen nothin'.
Constantly expanding (inflating) credit is going to be flying everywhere. Where's the American who wants decent compensation going to be? ...they'll be leaving the country or starving. That's where. Wave bye bye America. You've been robbed blind and then sold into worldwide slavery by your own government, and still you're too dumb to realize what happened. But that's ok. Consult your favorite talking heads or your favorite "statesmen." They'll tell you all about it. ...NOT!
|
#151 -- More from Mr. Saussy
I am not surprised to hear this. Some of Mr. Sherman's economic ideas seem pretty crankish to me, too. But that's for later. First let's talk about Mr. Saussy's lies. One of the problems I always have in these gold bug threads is that so much of the pro-metal material is cranked out by passionate kookburgers who leave out major material facts when they're proselytizing. For example, Saussy tells us that "it is a matter of record that after no state could make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts, the United States became the world's largest depository of gold and silver while simultaneously becoming the most productive nation in the history of the world." He cites this as evidence that "Roger Sherman had predicted events with perfect accuracy." Saussy also tells us about "President Washington's jubilant address to both houses of Congress on December 8th, 1795, six years after the states had been forced onto a strict diet of gold and silver coin." It seems to me that Mr. Saussy is trying to get us to associate the postwar economic boom with a "strict diet of gold and silver coin." The last time we encountered Mr. Saussy, he was trying to get us to associate a virulent inflation caused by British counterfeiting during the Revolutionary War with the Federal Reserve. He did that by accidentally leaving out the part about the counterfeiting, leaving us to conclude that the massive inflation was simply an unavoidable side effect of paper money. It might be a good idea, then, to ask what Mr. Saussy might be leaving out this time. We have a glorious prosperity, we have a jubliant George Washington, and we have a strict diet of gold and silver coin. What could be simpler? Well, for one thing, there's the little matter of Alexander Hamilton's bank. The First Bank of the United States was chartered in 1791 after the bill passed both Houses of Congress and President Washington signed it into law. Uh-oh. A central bank rears its ugly head. Worse still, Alexander Hamilton -- a known Founding Father -- thought it up. And George Washington, Hero of the Revolution and the Father of our Country, approved it. Next thing you know, we'll find out that -- horrors! -- the bank issued paper money.
It gets worse. It was common in those days for state-chartered private banks to issue "bank notes" which circulated as money. The Constitution may have prohibited the states from making "any thing but gold and silver" legal tender, but nothing prevented private banks from issuing bank notes, and nothing prevented individual citizens from accepting them in payment of debts. And they did so, in large numbers. Mr. Staussy's idyllic properity, caused by prohibiting all money but gold and silver coin... never happened. It's all a lie. It's another load of ax-grinding crapola from those oh-so-authoritative gold bug sites. The obvious question now is, who were the contemporaries who thought that Roger Sherman's ideas about money were "crankish?" It turns out that two of them were George Washington and Alexander Hamilton. |
To take just one point, look at what the government has reported for inflation in the last 10 years (basically under 2% per year). If you bought the cheapest car 10 years ago, you may have paid $5 tp $6 thousand. Now the cheapest car is over $10 thousand. But the government says because the new car has more features, the price is not inflating. Follow that reasoning for other products and you get an idea of what has been happenning.
My mom is a very conservative lady. She tends to buy the same things, even when she only has the need to buy a car every 14 years. She has made the following two purchases;
1985 Honda Accord LX -- $13,350.00
1999 Honda Accord LX -- $17,750.00
You do the math.
Thanks. I think you have convinced me. But if Kemp is not in "that camp," who is? He also argued for lower taxes in that article (thanks for which by the way). As for gold, it has dropped in price trememdously in recent years, however. What do you make of that?
#124 Yep, I knew you were a piece of work, and that proved it.
|
It has been the devaluation of the dollar, not inflation, which has reduced its buying
power!
|
I view consolidation as a method for making sure that any mistake made will be a big mistake that effects everything.
Why did Greenspan raise interest rates in early 2000 when there were no signs of inflation?
"Or, a dollar today will buy only one-tenth of the gold a dollar would have bought in 1971. Put simply, the price of gold has inflated four times more than the price of everything else since 1971. And they say the dollar is the problem?"
If you base your dollar on gold, if the dollar inflates, or becomes worth less gold, the price of paper money you would pay for the same amount of gold goes up. It's called a standard. If you have 1 dollar worth of gold, and gold is your standard and you print one bill, your bill is worth 1 dollar in gold. If you print another bill, your bill is worth .50$ so therefore, if you wanted to buy 1 dollar worth of gold, you would need TWO bills because each is ACTUALLY only worth .50 cents, or is that to complicated for you to follow?
We all know you prefer Fiat money over what all the Founding Fathers agreed to in Article 1 Section 10...but let's find out how big of a Marxist you really are.
Anyone with half a brain knows that a progressive/graduated income tax is the second plank in Karl Marx Communist Manifesto...but in over three years and over 500 threads you have not bothered to voice an opinion on the matter. Why is that? Do you love the Marxist income tax and Gestapo IRS? Is you little gif with an overcoat a hint of what you do for a living?
. That's why I don't consider a low, but continuous, inflation rate to be a big deal. In fact I see it as a benefit, because it penalizes people for keeping what could be investment capital locked up doing nothing.
Yeah take that all you people who might want to STOP working every once in a while and use STORED SAVINGS to bring you pleasure on your Pursuit of Happiness! How dare you hoard the money I need because I love fiat money!
Man are your true colors coming through. First you try to call anti-fiaters Communists, and now you're praising punishing people who might not want to work 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, competing with other slaves for work worldwide, being is their government sold them down the river. Man you are one piece of work!
|
I knew you were a piece of work, and that proved it.
Anyone who wants to send us back to the Middle Ages, or cripple our ability to grow our economy, or turn our ability to manage our own affairs over to frigging gold miners in Russia or South Africa, is going to get the sharp end of my stick every time.
I don't care if it's malice or ignorance. I am so sick of people coming onto Free Republic with this thinly-disguised Marxist crapola about class struggle and the labor theory of value and how we're all getting screwed by the In fact I did puke, all over this thread. And I am going to do it again, and again, and again, on every one of these "Federal Reserve is a Scam" threads, until I am sure that every Freeper understands what this crap is, where it is coming from, and why it is coming here. My view on this is real simple. If it walks like class struggle between labor and capital, and it talks like the labor theory of value, and it quacks about private ownership of the banking system, then it's a duck. Bang. |
For those that hate inflation, the current paradise is Japan. Over and out.
Isn't that cute?
Freedom is lost when ignorant twits contemplate the minutia of the irrelevant and bang their head on the keyboard.
Need an aspirin?
We got a real live Marxist here boys!
Because it is not backed by anything of true value, our currency can be devalued at any time.
But what you've witnessed over the last few years has been the devaluing of gold. Governments hoard gold - the price goes up. Governments decide the cost of warehousing the stuff is too high and they get rid of it - the price goes down. Keep doing this and gold yo-yos just as much as a free-floating currency.
Compared to a dollar in 1900, today's U.S. dollar is worth about five cents.
Okay, so what? If you haven't noticed, the standard of living is much, much higher than it was a hundred years ago. If inflation is so horrible, how did we all manage to get so comparatively wealthy in the meantime?
Nick Danger> That's why I don't consider a low, but continuous, inflation rate to be a big deal. In fact I see it as a benefit, because it penalizes people for keeping what could be investment capital locked up doing nothing.
alien2>Yeah take that all you people who might want to STOP working every once in a while and use STORED SAVINGS to bring you pleasure on your Pursuit of Happiness! How dare you hoard the money I need because I love fiat money!
How are my bare bones short term CD's not supassing inflation?
Man are your true colors coming through
It's simple. Don't store your savings in the form of currency. Invest in something. Start a business. Loan it to your children so they can start a business. Buy stock in General Motors. I don't care what you do with it. I just don't want you messing up our ability to adjust the money supply to accomodate economic growth with your requirement that the value of the currency never change. There are plenty of alternative ways to store wealth. Almost all of them pay a rate of return greater than zero. Why are you so intent on storing your money in non-interest-bearing zero-return currency? The people using money as a medium of exchange need to get on with their lives. Leave the 18h century behind, and get out of their way.
For those that hate inflation, the current paradise is Japan. Over and out.
Not to mention a high personal savings rate, something which Bush's Chief Economic Advisor, Lawrence Lindsey, wants to force upon this country.
Well, if our money becomes worthless, then EVERYONE's money becomes worthless as well. Then we are trading goats and cigarettes, as Nick pointed out.
What I can see that would happen is that assets in securities would be zapped.
I would think that assets in many types of securities would remain valuable. Since capital stock represents real property, solid company stock should retain value (if they can find a way to continue business, of course). Bonds would get trashed, since they are held for $ returns. Solid companies might make an adjustment for bondholders, to pay them in some valuable currency.
Money is a bookeeping device, and as such it is inherently flimsy as a set of numbers written on a bank statement, bits in a computer memory, or green paper with markings. The bookkeeping entries are subject to manipulation by the bookkeepers -- don't let them do your accounting. What do these guys want? If you want a hard asset, go get it, store it, assay it, guard it, carry it around, buy and sell it, etc. You may find currency somewhat more convenient, just don't hold it for extended periods.
Why are you so intent on storing your money in non-interest-bearing zero-return currency?
Anyone that does that is self taxing themselves and giving a nice little subsidy to the government. Let them be.
#202 Sorry Bubba, you're barking up the wrong tree when it comes to me. But you know that already if you've read my profile.
Who's to say what the value of gold would be today if our currency was backed by it?
Has the value of gold been manipulated? Here's a taste of the upcoming court case...
IV. Manipulation of Gold Prices
34. This complaint alleges manipulation of gold prices from 1994 to the present time by a conspiracy of public officials and major bullion banks. This manipulative scheme appears directed at three objectives: (1) to prevent rising gold prices from sounding a warning on U.S. inflation; (2) to prevent rising gold prices from signaling weakness in the international value of the dollar; and (3) to prevent banks and others who have funded themselves by borrowing gold at low interest rates and are thus short physical gold from suffering huge losses as a consequence of rising gold prices.
35. Support for the price fixing allegations in this complaint comes from various sources, including: (1) official reports of the BIS, OCC, Fed and ESF; (2) analyses of market data; (3) statements by certain participants in the manipulative scheme; and (4) statements by others with knowledge of the manipulative scheme.
Please don't try to convince us there ain't no gold in them thar hills. Or that there is a Shortage of Gold.
It's a well know fact that the FED and their Gestapo collection agents the IRS suddenly materialized at precisely the same moment in time - so I have a few questions for you...
2. Is a Federal Reserve Note Constitutional?
3. Has Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution been repealed without my knowledge?
4. If the FED can create money out of thin air, what is the reason for "interest" on loans?
5. Wouldn't profits from the repayment "at face value" be sufficient to run the country without the income tax, self employment tax, death tax, gift tax, capital gains tax and payroll tax including social security and medicare?
6. Why did Congress decide on an income tax in the first place when everyone with half a brain knows it's the second plank in Karl Marx Communist Manifesto?
7. Why does it take the husband and wife working to provide for their family when ONE (1) bread-winner was enough just 30 years ago?
Let me help you...
The Original Intent of the "Income Tax"
Why did Greenspan raise interest rates in early 2000 when there were no signs of inflation?
I do not know, but I have a theory. It appears to me that the Federal Reserve initiates a slowdown early in the year every four years, to coincide with Presidential elections. There's a time lag in doing this, the economy doesn't turn on a dime. It looks to me like what they are trying to accomplish is an economic contraction early in the new President's term. Once it hits, they open the jets full throttle and try to send the new President's economy into sub-orbital flight, peaking about the time he comes up for re-election.
In this way does Alan Greenspan keep his job.
It looks to me like they undershot this time, and the contraction started to become apparent late in the Clinton Administration. Or maybe they missed on purpose, hoping to drive a nail in the coffin of any would-be continuation of the Clinton Administration under Gore.
I don't suppose we'll ever know.
#207 Let it be known that that post as it stands is not the whole post that I left earlier, and that I DO see that as an attempt to slander.
#208 Are you sure you want to take me on? Are you positive you want to do that? Because I can pretty much promise you that if you do you will be destroyed. I don't quite fit your arguments thus far you see, and give it time you are going to be eating dust. ...no matter who helps you.
So you think long and hard about whether that is what you want or not. But if that is what you want, then I can tell you that I've been waiting for this show to go down for some time, and you'd better buckle up because you're in for one heck of a ride.
Well, I'm all in favor of lower taxes, naturally. So Jack and I are still on speaking terms, but this gold thing's gotta go ;)
I'm willing, ten years later, to chalk up the first Bush administration as part of his learning curve, and give Greenspan credit for generally not monkeying around trying to "tweak" the economy. Now, if he'd just STFU about "irrational exuberance" and quit trying to jawbone the markets downward from time to time...
Essentially, I think that government does the most for economies by doing the least - avoiding confiscatory tax schemes, not stifling private capital markets through overregulation, etc., etc. Generally, government helps economies by staying the hell out of the way, more than anything else. Government should demonstrate fiscal responsibility by avoiding deficits whenever possible, although government should still have the capacity to float debt and run a deficit when necessary. Governments should try to resist the temptation to spend themselves out of recession - ask the Japanese how well that works.
Fighting the markets over the value of your currency is another losing proposition - ask the Indonesians and the Thai. For all the complaining about the Fed and its legitimacy or lack thereof, one crucial fact is ignored. The Fed is just one player - albeit a mighty big one - in a very big market for currency. The day-to-day value of the dollar is not controlled by the Fed, really. Oh, sure, they could completely foul things up but burning massive amounts of currency, or by printing it day and night, but that's about all they can do. What really matters is the collective opinion of the currency traders in London and elsewhere. A trillion dollars a day changes hands in the currency markets, making it far too big for even the Fed to control. If those guys - the traders, that is - believe that the dollar is overvalued, it will drop. And if they think, based on the economic climate of the US relative to the rest of the world, that the dollar is undervalued, it will rise.
Just ask the EU government. When the euro was introduced, it was set at a rate of about 1 euro = $1.10. Now, the EU government would desperately like the euro to be at or slightly above one euro to one dollar, mostly for psychological reasons - their pride. But right now, it's about 1 euro = $0.85, and it shows no real sign of recovering. And there's not a damn thing they can do about it, because those traders looked at the economic health of Europe, compared it to that of the US, looked at how many dollars were flying around out in the world versus how many euros, and concluded that a euro just wasn't really worth $1.10. Game over.
Basically, in summary, what can government do? Mostly, stay out of the way. Monkeying with monetary policy almost never helps in the long run, and very often makes thing worse. If you want a sound currency, the best way is to have a sound economy. So, consider that, among your other issues, when you go to vote.
As for the drop in the value of gold lately, gold is a commodity, subject to the same market forces of supply and demand as any other. Essentially, there's a glut of gold at the moment, because demand is static but supply is increasing. But that's not a forever deal - it won't always be like that. If I were a betting man, I'd bet that the price of gold will continue to fall in the near term. Then, as it gets cheaper and cheaper, people will find more industrial uses for it, such as in electronics components. At that point, gold actually has a use - it hasn't really had a practical use for most of history - so demand will rise and the price will probably rise as well. And then, perhaps, it'll get so expensive that people will look for alternatives. So demand will fall and the price will most likely fall. Rinse, lather, repeat, ad infinitum. So much for the magical stability of the value of gold ;)
NYcomPOST:
CASE MAY EXPOSE U.S.
GOVERNMENT'S GOLDEN
HANDSHAKE
--
By JOHN CRUDELE
May 29, 2001 -- SOME of the alleged secret financial dealings between the Clinton administration and the financial markets could soon be made public.
No, Monica's not blabbing again. These secrets could come out of legal proceeding in Boston that has gotten absolutely no publicity in this country although the foreign-language press has been keeping people somewhat up to date.
The suit was filed by a guy named Reginald Howe, who is a member a Texas-based group called the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee. Neither he nor the group is wacko.
Howe is a Harvard-trained, top-notch trial lawyer who is alleging that the U.S. government, in cahoots with New York banks, has purposely kept the price of gold artificially low for six years.
GATA has been charging that the conspiracy was aimed at keeping the dollar strong. But it also - perhaps inadvertently - helped Wall Street make billions on bullion by borrowing gold from Central Banks at 1 percent interest rates, selling the gold and then investing the proceeds in other markets at much higher rates of return.
Howe, with GATA's help, alleges in Massachusetts Federal District Court that the maneuver was a sure-fire rig as long as the price of gold didn't rise - which the government saw that it didn't.
A trial date hasn't yet been set by Judge Reginald C. Lindsay, who recently heard arguments on whether the case should go forward.
If it proceeds, the next important step will be "discovery." That's when the gold bugs will get their anxious little hands on government secrets.
If the judge cooperates and lets the goldies examine the government's briefs, there is no telling what will be discovered.
_____________________
If you really want to get into the subject of the gold carry trade and derivatives, which will be the subject of the lawsuit, check out this link: lemetropolecafe
Thanks much. You have been a great help to someone who in college conquered Latin, History, Statistics, and even the Swimming test, but who dropped Economics . . . like a stone! One last question: What do you think of the long-term stock market? (a few years and out . . . I don't car about the short term). Stay the course? Or are we in serious long-term trouble?
splain this:

|
Do you love the Marxist income tax and Gestapo IRS? Is you little gif with an
overcoat a hint of what you do for a living?
I don't like taxes that are hidden. Any tax which gets buried into the price of something -- and I include all taxes on corporations in that category -- I consider to be a form of burglary. When I was a kid they used to have signs on the gas pumps that said "Includes XX cents in state taxes" in big letters, right where you could see it. I wish they still did that. I don't like witholding taxes. I am dumbfounded by this, but there are whole bunches of people who get a "refund" on April 15th and think they made money on the deal. For them, the income tax is hidden. They don't think they pay any. I use my head-banging graphic for them, too. I like the NRST. It's right out in the open. You see it every time you buy something. It's shockingly high, but I think that's the point. If people actually SAW what they are paying in taxes, they'd freak. This would be a good thing. My fear with the progressive income tax is that we have waited too long to get rid of it. We are now faced with the reality that those of us who pax taxes can be out-voted by those who pay none. That is a watershed event. It means our government is effectively in the hands of people who have no stake in how high taxes might go, except that if they go higher, those voters will get more benefits. That might be a one-way deal, kinda like a maelstrom. I personally cannot think of any method by which to convince someone who now pays no income taxes at all, that he should start paying an NRST, or even an income tax, so that I can pay less. This sounds to me like a problem which can only be solved by so-called 'alternative forms of persuasion'. |
"The solution is to have educate yourself and to vote for leaders who have sound fiscal and monetary policies"
Show me one. I'd be happy to vote for him.
Just in case you question the graph.....it is from the Federal Reserve Bank $1.00 in 1913 takes $18.00 to buy same goods in 2001
No, not complicated, just wrong. If gold is such a wondeful standard, why is its value so wildly out of whack with the things you are likely to buy with it?
Let's start from the beginning. If gold is a good standard, then its value relative to the things you want to buy shouldn't change much, right? Otherwise, it's no better as a standard than paper currency, okay?
But gold hasn't held its value relative to other things. Consumer prices have risen 2 1/2 times over the last thirty years. Gold prices have risen tenfold. Now, you want to blame the inflation of the dollar for the underwhelming performance of gold. But if gold held its value, meaning its value relative to consumer goods was pretty much constant - which we want, remember, or it's no good to us as a standard - the inflation of consumer prices should have been exactly the same as the inflation of gold prices. It wasn't - gold did much worse. And blaming the dollar for that is sort of like blaming the yardstick for the fact that you are short. All the dollar-denominated prices do in this case is allow us to compare the relative values of two different things, just like a yardstick allows us to measure the relative heights of two different people.
Clearly, the value of gold bears no relation to the value of consumer goods. And what good is that?
Or is that too complicated?
Nick Danger>. That's why I don't consider a low, but continuous, inflation rate to be a big deal. In fact I see it as a benefit, because it penalizes people for keeping what could be investment capital locked up doing nothing.
alien2>Yeah take that all you people who might want to STOP working every once in a while and use STORED SAVINGS to bring you pleasure on your Pursuit of Happiness! How dare you hoard the money I need because I love fiat money!
Man are your true colors coming through. First you try to call anti-fiaters Communists, and now you're praising punishing people who might not want to work 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, competing with other slaves for work worldwide, being is their government sold them down the river. Man you are one piece of work!
How are my bare bones short term CD's not supassing inflation?