Owning Gold Still Illegal?

13 posts / 0 new
Last post
SamLinder's picture
SamLinder
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 10 2008
Posts: 1499
Owning Gold Still Illegal?

I'm cross-posting this from my post #6 in the "Confiscation" thread since it seemed to have been lost in the shuffle as so often happens with these busy forums. The link below is from Davos' post #3.

Davos,

If I've read the above referenced link correctly (How Americans Lost Their Right
To Own Gold And Became Criminals in the Process by Henry Mark Holzer),
it is still illegal for Americans to possess gold [emphasis mine]:

The Law Today

The precedent established in Pike and Brouwer remains the law of the
land-at least in the Ninth Circuit-at the present time No other court
of comparable jurisdiction has ruled otherwise on the validity of the
criminal sanctions against Americans who own gold. As
things stand now, an American who owns gold is courting a felony
conviction. Moreover, under the Gold Reserve Act, all the gold he owns
is subject to forfeit while he, himself, is subject to a penalty double
in amount to the value of the gold.

Yet gold is currently, and publicly, being freely bought, sold, exchanged, stored, etc. What am I missing here?

I would appreciate hearing from those who might have more light to shed on this.

plantguy90's picture
plantguy90
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 26 2009
Posts: 271
Re: Owning Gold Still Illegal?

The silence is unsettling, sometimes I wonder if holding any currency makes any sense vs holding things of barter value, food, energy, defense.

Thomas Hedin's picture
Thomas Hedin
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 28 2009
Posts: 815
Re: Owning Gold Still Illegal?

How about we address the root cause of our finacial problems?  I think we can all agree that something is wrong, and maybe if we collectively start focusing on posible solutions we can just fix this mess.

 Here is a good three part video on "Can we go to a gold standard?"

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

I've yet to see anyone with more knowledge than this man, if you know of anyone else, please email me so I can interview them, if they are willing.

Pandabonium's picture
Pandabonium
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 30 2008
Posts: 62
Re: Owning Gold Still Illegal?

No.  It is not still illegal.

"The limitation on private gold ownership in the U.S. was repealed by an act of Congress codified in Public Law 93-373 [1][2] which went into effect December 31, 1974.
P.L. 93-373 does not repeal the Gold Clause Resolution of 1933 which
makes unlawful any contracts which specify payment in a fixed amount of
money or a fixed amount of gold. That is, contracts are unenforceable which use gold monetarily rather than as a commodity of trade."*

So the statement in the article by Henry Mark Holzer that "No other court of comparable jurisdiction has ruled otherwise on the validity of the criminal sanctions against Americans who own gold."  may be true, but it is irrelevant, since the Congress passed a law to make it legal and thus no court has had to rule on the matter.

*http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Executive-Order-6102

affert's picture
affert
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 22 2008
Posts: 100
Re: Owning Gold Still Illegal?

Thomas Hedin wrote:

How about we address the root cause of our finacial problems?  I think we can all agree that something is wrong, and maybe if we collectively start focusing on posible solutions we can just fix this mess.

Here is a good three part video on "Can we go to a gold standard?"

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

I've yet to see anyone with more knowledge than this man, if you know of anyone else, please email me so I can interview them, if they are willing.

So far I've watched the first video.  Overall, it seems clear to me that he doesn't understand the issue.

His first point seems to be wanting to blame the banks instead of the politicians, pointing out the that bankers have more power.  Yep, I agree with that.  This is one of the major reasons WHY a gold standard would be beneficial: it cuts down some of the power that banks have. 

He says some comment about we were only really on the gold standard for 33 years.  I have never heard anything like this, and he doesn't back it up or say what source he's referring too.

He does make a good point that the issue is how money goes into circulation.  That is the heart of the matter.  A gold standard puts a physical limit on the amount of money that can be in circulation, provided that we reform banking laws to disallow fractional reserves and creation-through-lending.  

Several times he said things about setting the value of gold compared to the dollar in w ay that implied a person or committee  would have to do this.  He talks about needing to worry if the value has gone up or down before he goes to buy something.  I wonder, does he check the value of the dollar before he goes shopping?  Does he worry that the value of the dollar has gotten weaker?  I doubt it.  In this point, he really shows that he doesn't understand:

In the transitional period (if the transition is using parallel currencies gold & FRN (federal reserve note)), then market forces would determine their relative value.  If some store prefers dollars, they will price things with a lower dollar price and a higher gold price.  If a different store prefers gold, they will price things with a higher dollar price and a lower gold price.  The baseline price can be determined by 'how many dollars does it take to buy a 1 oz gold coin?'  This is a VERY straight forward method of determining value.  Certainly the temptation for big bankers to try and manipulate the price would be there, but as more and more people switched, it would be more and more costly for them to do that.  So, his worries about how the price of gold are set are invalid during the transitional time.

Once the transition is done, it is my assumption that the FRNwill be completely abandoned, so it doesn't make any sense to talk about the price of gold compared to dollars.  

His point about there only being a certain amount of gold in the world and that this will make currency need to be made of VERY small amounts of gold.  One way to get around this is by using a 2 or 3 metal system.   Sure 1 oz of gold might by a new car.  Then you would use silver, or copper, or some other more abundant metal for buying groceries.  Another way would be to use electronic gold.

He objects to electronic gold becuase he says it is no different than debt-backed fiat currency.  There is a major difference: the backing.  In an electronic gold system, I could go to the bank and demand that I withdraw my currency into physical gold.  In our current system I cannot.  

In his argument about the trade deficit, he assumes that the trade deficit is a good thing and that we should allow it to continue.  He is completely right that this isn't possible in a system where the currency acutally means something.  It is foolishness.  But it is foolishness NOW!  Just because we have a  system that happens to let us do something that makes no sense doesn't mean we should keep doing that, nor does it mean we should make sure a new system has the same flaws.  

~watches the second video~

In the second video, he says at one point we "have to do things in by steps."  Yet throughout the whole video, he assumes that the gold standard will appear in one quick step.  Of course it won't appear all at one time.  

He starts out saying 'how are we going to buy gold?'   What about starting a gold standard with the gold we already have?  Just because he doesn't have any doesn't mean that nobody has any. 

As gold currency becomes more widely used, we will be able to get more gold using the time-honored traditional way of getting more money: selling something.   Again, his assumption here seems to be that the gold standard will pop into existance over-night.

At one point he talks about if we have 'enough money.'  This is silly: the amount of money only changes its value.  If suddenly, every bank account was worth 1000 times what it is now, would there be any more or less wealth?  No.  Prices would shift, we there would be no change.  The velocity of money and faith in money are both far more important than the amount.  In the transition, care would need to be taken to ensure that the velocity of money kept going (IE people weren't hoarding it).  But he didn't talk about that.

Dealing with the debt we have now: all debts now are currently denominated in FRNs.  As we transition away from FRNs, they will become less valuable.  The cheaper they are (the more inflated they become) the easier it will be to pay off these debts.  

He briefly meantions industrial uses.  Yes, gold as currency will make gold much more expensive.  That does mean that some industries will have to find substitutes.  Industries are allways needing to adjust to changing conditions.  

He mentions that the point of money is to facilitate as a medium of exchange.  This is missing a HUGE part of what money needs to be: a store of value.  He even alludes to that other places in his talk, such as when he asks 'why would i sell gold for FRN if I knew they would be worthless soon?'   Yep, excatly.  Money needs to retain value over time.  Yet that is something that fiat currency has utterly failed to do.  That he could miss a large part of the definition of money show how hopelessly lost he is.  

At one point he says a gold standard won't work because 'pockets will be too heavy.'  Yet earlier, he said that it won't work because the amount of gold is too small leading to only needing very small amounts of gold.  You can't have it both ways.  I am strong enough that I can very easily carry 8 oz of gold in my pockets.  But do I really want to be carrying that much money?  Even now, with gold not being worth nearly as much as it would be on a gold standard, that is far more valuable than I'd want to carry around with me.  

~ watches third video ~

My ability to pay attention and care about these videos was wavering at this point.  A few thoughts:

He points out that it is beneficial to have a money system that has uniform acceptance and value all across the country.  Yep.  So?  How is a gold standard going to be not standard across the country?  Does he think 1 oz of gold will be different somewhere else?  There will always be regional diffrences in prices (IE you can buy fresh fruit cheaper somewhere where it is grown), but this occurs now, so I hope this isn't what he was thinking.  

The system he is putting forward as a replacement for our current system is a system where the gov't creates debt free money that it uses to pay for its dealings.  He makes several misleading statements about a system like that:

1) "such a system would mean no taxes"  He forgets/ignores that inflation is a tax.  If the gov't spends an amount worth 5% of the current money supply, that is a tax on 5% of all people's weath in the entire country.  This is not a tax on income, it is a tax on wealth, so it would discourage people from saving.  People not saving is one of the things that has gotten us into our current mess.  Do we really want to discourage it more?

2) "the gov't would be able to spend the money in ways that benefit everyone"  He hasn't spent much time looking at Pork lately has he?  Beyond that, currently, the government and the people that produce the money work closely together, leading to too much power and corruption.  A system that makes sure that the government and the people deciding how much money to produce are EXCATLY the same people would be FAR worse.  What basis is there for the thesis that the government will work completely for the good of the people if they just had more power?  This is the classical argument for communism: corporation and government working closely together are corrupt, so let's get rid of the corporations by giving more control to the government.  

His final thoughts about us needing to have a belief system that keeps us honest I wholeheartedly agree with.  But I can't figure out what this has to do with why he thinks the gold standard is a bad idea.

All in all, these videos were bad.  He was logically inconsistant with himself.  He ignored very obvious problems.  It seems like he has already chosen his position (that a gold standard is a bad idea) and is just throwing up whatever objection comes to mind without taking time to think about how they might be answered.  

So Thomas, you may want to re-think promoting those videos.  

plantguy90's picture
plantguy90
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 26 2009
Posts: 271
Re: Owning Gold Still Illegal?

Thomas Hedin wrote:

How about we address the root cause of our finacial problems?  I think we can all agree that something is wrong, and maybe if we collectively start focusing on posible solutions we can just fix this mess.

 

 

How do you fix this mess of an Oligarchy keen on preserving the status quo?  Look at how well they absorbed Obama to do their bidding and pitch their failing policies. 

The collective as a people are bent on it, and educating the masses is a difficult task, as opposed to just tossing them more bread and circus.  No one has the political courage to do anything to correct this mess, some of it can be blamed on a democracy that allows the non-contributing masses the power of the vote.

Back to the illegal gold issue it seems to me that its kind of like drugs in America, everyone does it, even if its illegal, so its a dangerous stalemate.  I actually have more faith in our Military that they may act like Turkey to preserve the Constitution some day, vs. thinking those Oligarchs in Washington will ever change course.  I could be wrong, but that is my hope.

 

SamLinder's picture
SamLinder
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 10 2008
Posts: 1499
Re: Owning Gold Still Illegal?

Pandabonium wrote:

No.  It is not still illegal.

"The limitation on private gold ownership in the U.S. was repealed by an act of Congress codified in Public Law 93-373 [1][2] which went into effect December 31, 1974.
P.L. 93-373 does not repeal the Gold Clause Resolution of 1933 which
makes unlawful any contracts which specify payment in a fixed amount of
money or a fixed amount of gold. That is, contracts are unenforceable which use gold monetarily rather than as a commodity of trade."*

So the statement in the article by Henry Mark Holzer that "No other court of comparable jurisdiction has ruled otherwise on the validity of the criminal sanctions against Americans who own gold."  may be true, but it is irrelevant, since the Congress passed a law to make it legal and thus no court has had to rule on the matter.

*http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Executive-Order-6102

Thank you for that clarification, Pandabonium. I knew there had to be a reason it was all so open. However, I wouldn't put it past the Oligarchy to try to take it all back again some future day. Someone in another thread said you should only pay cash and don't give them an address - sounds like good advice to me!

Thomas Hedin's picture
Thomas Hedin
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 28 2009
Posts: 815
Re: Owning Gold Still Illegal?

I'm glad we agree that the bankers clearly have more influence over the politicians than the other way around.  I think the part where we seperate is in the context of the gold standard in which we are talking about.  The question was about the gold standard the Ludwig Von Mises is advocating.  Maybe you have better ideas than they do, and I would absolutely love to hear them.  I'll ask a few simple questions at the end of my statement that you may answer if you wish.

This is one of the major reasons WHY a gold standard would be beneficial: it cuts down some of the power that banks have. Just how would your gold standard change things?  The Von Mises are advocating having the banks own all the gold, then lend out the gold at interest.  The Mises are advocating a debt money system.  If we went to a gold standard, how would you have it function?

He says some comment about we were only really on the gold standard for 33 years.  I have never heard anything like this, and he doesn't back it up or say what source he's referring too.  I made that information clearly available for you to see in the video when I put the name of the law (Gold Standard Act), start date (1900) and the U.S. Code (31 U.S.C. 314) which can be easily googled.  I also included the act passed that abandoned the gold standard.  The Emergency Banking Relief Act.

He does make a good point that the issue is how money goes into circulation.  That is the heart of the matter.  A gold standard puts a physical limit on the amount of money that can be in circulation, provided that we reform banking laws to disallow fractional reserves and creation-through-lending. How money goes into circulation is absolutely what is destroying this great nation.  What the Von Mises is advocating is a debt money system(exactly what we have now), the only difference is a 100% reserve base in gold.  How would you put gold into circulation if you could impliment a gold standard?

Several times he said things about setting the value of gold compared to the dollar in w ay that implied a person or committee  would have to do this.  He talks about needing to worry if the value has gone up or down before he goes to buy something.  I wonder, does he check the value of the dollar before he goes shopping?  Does he worry that the value of the dollar has gotten weaker?  I doubt it.  In this point, he really shows that he doesn't understand:  Are you trying to say that stores would just charge in grains of gold?  If they did this, who at the store would weigh and verify the pureity of the gold?  I'm confused as to how your payment system would work.

In the transitional period (if the transition is using parallel currencies gold & FRN (federal reserve note)), then market forces would determine their relative value.  If some store prefers dollars, they will price things with a lower dollar price and a higher gold price.  If a different store prefers gold, they will price things with a higher dollar price and a lower gold price.  The baseline price can be determined by 'how many dollars does it take to buy a 1 oz gold coin?'  This is a VERY straight forward method of determining value.  Certainly the temptation for big bankers to try and manipulate the price would be there, but as more and more people switched, it would be more and more costly for them to do that.  So, his worries about how the price of gold are set are invalid during the transitional time.  Under the Von Mises plan there would be zero difference between FRN's and their gold standard.  It would all still be BANK CREDIT.  Bank credit is what we use for money, not FRN's.  The Federal Reserve can have as many FRN's printed up as it can afford, but they still have to be monetized before they are put into circulation. The Bureau of Engraving and Printing prints all the Federal Reserve notes for the cost of printing (approx 4.5 cents per note reguardless of the number printed on it) and sells them to the FR at that price. From there all other banks have to purchase those notes at face value. Then in order for the consumer to get any FRN's they have to go and purchase them from their local banking institution at face value with their demand deposit money(checking account money). In order for any money to be in that checking account that person, or another person in the system had to go into debt(at interest) in order to have any money in their checking account (debt money).  The Von Mises from my understanding would have gold notes(a promise to pay).  In order to get that gold note, a person would still have to have a demand deposit with that bank and the only way they would allow that money to exsist is to have gotten a loan from that bank(the customer is in debt to the bank).  How is what the Von Mises advocating going to be a stable money system since it operates under the exact same priciples as what we have now?

Dealing with the debt we have now: all debts now are currently denominated in FRNs.  As we transition away from FRNs, they will become less valuable.  The cheaper they are (the more inflated they become) the easier it will be to pay off these debts. I hope my explanation of how FRN's come into circulation shows that it is impossible to pay off the debt that way, unless I'm wrong in stating that it's impossible to borrow our way out of debt.  John B. Henderson, Senior Specialist in Price Economics said it like this - "Money is created when loans are issued and debts incurred; money is extinguished when loans are repaid".  Byron then asked Russel L. Munk from the U.S. Treasury "where does the money come from to pay the interest on the borrowed money".  Mr. Munk said "Money for paying interest on borrowed money comes from the same source as other money comes from".  In other words, the principal from someone elses borrowed money is used to pay interest on another persons borrowed money. Once time and interest kick in on borrowed money, the debt grows but the money supply does not.  It's clearly impossible to borrow our way out of debt, and we all know this to be true from our own personal experiences.

Once the transition is done, it is my assumption that the FRNwill be completely abandoned, so it doesn't make any sense to talk about the price of gold compared to dollars. How are we going to get rid of all the debt we have now? 

His point about there only being a certain amount of gold in the world and that this will make currency need to be made of VERY small amounts of gold.  One way to get around this is by using a 2 or 3 metal system.   Sure 1 oz of gold might by a new car.  Then you would use silver, or copper, or some other more abundant metal for buying groceries.  Another way would be to use electronic gold.  Does it matter what our currency is or what it does?  Do you see any problems with how our currency functions, or (like me) just see a problem with how it's put into circulation?  Wouldn't using electronic gold be using the exact same system we are using right now?

He objects to electronic gold becuase he says it is no different than debt-backed fiat currency.  There is a major difference: the backing.  In an electronic gold system, I could go to the bank and demand that I withdraw my currency into physical gold.  In our current system I cannot.  Under the Mises plan, the banks would loan out the gold, and as soon as time and interest kicked in on the loan the debt would grow but the money supply would not, forcing people to go back to the bank to get another loan just to have money.  As soon as the bank loaned out more certificated than it had gold it would be impossible for everyone to get their gold out of the bank.  If the banks didn't loan out more bank credit than it had gold, the system the Mises is advocating would collapse within a very short period of time, leaving the banks with all the real property after the forclosers.  How would your system of a gold standard be different from what the Mises is advocating?

In his argument about the trade deficit, he assumes that the trade deficit is a good thing and that we should allow it to continue.  He is completely right that this isn't possible in a system where the currency acutally means something.  It is foolishness.  But it is foolishness NOW!  Just because we have a  system that happens to let us do something that makes no sense doesn't mean we should keep doing that, nor does it mean we should make sure a new system has the same flaws. I very much doubt that he thinks this trade deficit is a good thing.  Our trade deficite is a consequence of our monetary system because businesses are desperate to find cheaper labor, cheaper raw materials, and any way to increase profitibility to stay ahead of their interest load (including raising prices) and they have for the most part maxed our all three options.  If we didn't have this trade deficit right now, a complete collapse of the american economy would have already happened because it's impossible for businesses to stay profitable in this monetary system - in time.  I agree with you 100% that our system needs to be changed, I just think the change ought to be to introduce debt free money into our system so that way businesses and indivuals can collectively reduce, then eliminate our debt.  Do you think this country was better off when it had less debt?

In the second video, he says at one point we "have to do things in by steps."  Yet throughout the whole video, he assumes that the gold standard will appear in one quick step.  Of course it won't appear all at one time. Where are we going to get the gold, how much are we going to need, and how are you going to put it into circulation?

He starts out saying 'how are we going to buy gold?'   What about starting a gold standard with the gold we already have?  Just because he doesn't have any doesn't mean that nobody has any.  I've yet to 100% verify this info so it could be wrong, but from my findings the USA's total gold supply(jewlery, coins, bullion, cpu parts) is around 8150 tons.  8150 tons x 2200 pounds = 17930000 pounds x 14.583333 (troy ounces to a pound) = 261479160.69.  Divide that by 303 million you get .86 ounces per person.  Then that begs the question are you really going to force you mother to turn in her wedding ring to have it melted into currency?  Just how are you going to get all that gold from the people who own it?

 

As gold currency becomes more widely used, we will be able to get more gold using the time-honored traditional way of getting more money: selling something.   Again, his assumption here seems to be that the gold standard will pop into existance over-night.  Just where is this gold going to come from?

At one point he talks about if we have 'enough money.'  This is silly: the amount of money only changes its value.  If suddenly, every bank account was worth 1000 times what it is now, would there be any more or less wealth?  No.  Prices would shift, we there would be no change.  The velocity of money and faith in money are both far more important than the amount.  In the transition, care would need to be taken to ensure that the velocity of money kept going (IE people weren't hoarding it).  But he didn't talk about that. If the amount is unimportant, then why use gold at all? Velocity is what pays interest is a sham, a phantom explanation, money can't be principal and interest payments at the same time, no matter how fast it changes hands.  If this new currency became so valuable how would someone with zero money get some of this ultra valuable stuff?  If people are hording money it takes money out of circulation, therfore in effect reducing the money supply.  Are you trying to say that people being responsable and saving money is the cause of inflation?

Dealing with the debt we have now: all debts now are currently denominated in FRNs.  As we transition away from FRNs, they will become less valuable.  The cheaper they are (the more inflated they become) the easier it will be to pay off these debts.  The debt is always greater than the money supply under our current system, and under the one the Mises proposes.  Again, we use bank credit for currency.  You can go purchase FRN's with your bank credit though.  How would your system pay down the debt?

He briefly meantions industrial uses.  Yes, gold as currency will make gold much more expensive.  That does mean that some industries will have to find substitutes.  Industries are allways needing to adjust to changing conditions. If gold is to become so expensive how will anyone who doesn't have any gold be able to afford to get some?  If you say from working, how would their boss be able to get it if it is so expensive?

He mentions that the point of money is to facilitate as a medium of exchange.  This is missing a HUGE part of what money needs to be: a store of value.  He even alludes to that other places in his talk, such as when he asks 'why would i sell gold for FRN if I knew they would be worthless soon?'   Yep, excatly.  Money needs to retain value over time.  Yet that is something that fiat currency has utterly failed to do.  That he could miss a large part of the definition of money show how hopelessly lost he is. Money is only a tool to make barter simpler, that's all it is.  Something to make the exchange of real goods and services possible.  The Mises advocates using a debt money system based on the exact same principles that we use now, can you please explain how you would use gold to cure these problems?

At one point he says a gold standard won't work because 'pockets will be too heavy.'  Yet earlier, he said that it won't work because the amount of gold is too small leading to only needing very small amounts of gold.  You can't have it both ways.  I am strong enough that I can very easily carry 8 oz of gold in my pockets.  But do I really want to be carrying that much money?  Even now, with gold not being worth nearly as much as it would be on a gold standard, that is far more valuable than I'd want to carry around with me.  Historically people preffered paper money (gold deposit slips) because they were lighter and easier to carry.  If you minted a gold coin, how large would it be and what value would you have assigned to it?  Or are you trying to say that you preffer a pure barter system with gold where we argue our the price of everything we buy?  What about the people with no gold? Cleary their isn't enought to go around, what about the people with no money once the gold standard is in full effect?

My ability to pay attention and care about these videos was wavering at this point.  A few thoughts: My ability to be up until 3:AM writing a reply to your message is wavering at this point.

He points out that it is beneficial to have a money system that has uniform acceptance and value all across the country.  Yep.  So?  How is a gold standard going to be not standard across the country?  Does he think 1 oz of gold will be different somewhere else?  There will always be regional diffrences in prices (IE you can buy fresh fruit cheaper somewhere where it is grown), but this occurs now, so I hope this isn't what he was thinking. He was referring to a duel monetary system.  As you enact a full gold standard what are the people going to do that have no gold?  How will they buy that fruit because we've already shown that there simple isn't enough gold.  Once the gold standard goes into effect completely, when those people can't make their house payments and become homeless, who is going to pay to take care of them?

The system he is putting forward as a replacement for our current system is a system where the gov't creates debt free money that it uses to pay for its dealings.  He makes several misleading statements about a system like that:

1) "such a system would mean no taxes"  He forgets/ignores that inflation is a tax.  If the gov't spends an amount worth 5% of the current money supply, that is a tax on 5% of all people's weath in the entire country.  This is not a tax on income, it is a tax on wealth, so it would discourage people from saving.  People not saving is one of the things that has gotten us into our current mess.  Do we really want to discourage it more? Where did the government get that money to spend.  Russel L. Munk said it best "the actual creation of money ALWAYS involves an extention of credit by a private commericial bank".  The government creates no money.  Lets be honest here, if you had a printing press in your back yard would you ever borrow money from someone?  Earlier you said people hoarding money(saving) would be a problem, but now you're saying people caused this mess by not saving?  Which one it is it?  Another question, if the only way we can get money into circulation is by borrowing, how can anyone save at all?  Can you please explain to me how we can borrow our way out of debt?

2) "the gov't would be able to spend the money in ways that benefit everyone"  He hasn't spent much time looking at Pork lately has he?  Beyond that, currently, the government and the people that produce the money work closely together, leading to too much power and corruption.  A system that makes sure that the government and the people deciding how much money to produce are EXCATLY the same people would be FAR worse.  What basis is there for the thesis that the government will work completely for the good of the people if they just had more power?  This is the classical argument for communism: corporation and government working closely together are corrupt, so let's get rid of the corporations by giving more control to the government. All of that money that the government is spending came into exsictance by an extention of credit from a private commercial bank.  I'm sorry to inform you but the only way money is created is by an extention of credit, not by people, our government, or anywhere else.  All money in exsistance is lent into exsistance and not spent.  If they spent the money into circulation, it would be final payment and it would be the money, free of interest, and inflation.  All that pork is just throwing money(bank credit) at people so they get comfortable at going and getting more money into circulation(another loan) to keep this rediculous system going.  How would the government have more power over the people if they actually transfered ownership of the money to the people (spent it not lent it like banks do).  Russel L. Munk even claified this for us too.  "You may want to know whether the bank is the one getting the benifit of the new money since the bank OWNS the money while the customer has merely borrowed the money.  The bank does indeed get the benefit of the new money".  Transfering ownership of the money to the people is the exact opposite of communism.  in effect what we are proposing is to have the actual ownership of the money be transferred to the people. 

 

If you want to really learn how our monetary system functions, then may I suggest that you purchase Tales From The Treasury.  It can be purchased online or directly from Mr.Dale at 952-925-6099.  I hope this email helped answer any of the questions you asked.  Please read our blog (from bottom to top) at http://www.moneyaswealth.blogspot.com

May we fix the problems with our montetary system, then go back to auguing over who is the best fisherman, when we all know it me, of course! :)

 

Thomas Hedin's picture
Thomas Hedin
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 28 2009
Posts: 815
Re: Owning Gold Still Illegal?

How do you fix this mess of an Oligarchy keen on preserving the status quo?  Look at how well they absorbed Obama to do their bidding and pitch their failing policies.  I think WE are going to have to fix it, because if people just sit around waiting for someone else to do it, it's never going to happen.  The best first step I've heard so far is to introduce some debt free money into circulation by spending(not lending) money on permanant infastructure projects because everyone can use them, and they benifit everyone.  Personally I say forget fixing this at the federal level(at first) and lets focus on the state level, where our voices can be heard and where we can put direct pressure on our reps. I've got the political courage to fix this, if you live in Minnesota how about you help me!  If you live somewhere else, I'll send you a copy of The Minnesota Transportation Act and you can go through the proper channels to try to get it passed in your state.

Pandabonium's picture
Pandabonium
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 30 2008
Posts: 62
Re: Owning Gold Still Illegal?

Sam - you're welcome. 

I agree with that advice by the way.   

Best.

strabes's picture
strabes
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 7 2009
Posts: 1032
Re: Owning Gold Still Illegal?

It's great to hear your energy Thomas.  I look forward to seeing how things go out there in MN.  I might have to follow your lead in other states.  Cool

This has become my passion...helping to bring down the banking elite. 

fujisan's picture
fujisan
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 5 2008
Posts: 296
Re: Owning Gold Still Illegal?

affert wrote:

In the transitional period (if the transition is using parallel currencies gold & FRN (federal reserve note)), then market forces would determine their relative value.  If some store prefers dollars, they will price things with a lower dollar price and a higher gold price.  If a different store prefers gold, they will price things with a higher dollar price and a lower gold price.  The baseline price can be determined by 'how many dollars does it take to buy a 1 oz gold coin?'  This is a VERY straight forward method of determining value.  Certainly the temptation for big bankers to try and manipulate the price would be there, but as more and more people switched, it would be more and more costly for them to do that.  So, his worries about how the price of gold are set are invalid during the transitional time.

Once the transition is done, it is my assumption that the FRNwill be completely abandoned, so it doesn't make any sense to talk about the price of gold compared to dollars.   

I beleive it would totally fail this way, there would be no transitional perdiod so to speak.

Even before this 'transition to gold' becomes official, insiders will know gold will be the next money standard and will rush buying all the gold they can, because they know it will skyroket (indeed dollar devaluate to near zero). As soon as it's officially announced or even before, every wise person all around the planet will also rush buying gold for the same reason. So all gold will end in the hands of the happy few insiders in a few days and everybody else will get robbed without any gold available. So I beleive this transition period is just a foolish game.

Thomas Hedin's picture
Thomas Hedin
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 28 2009
Posts: 815
Re: Owning Gold Still Illegal?

I did some research about switching to the gold standard, and addressed what the Von Mises is advocating.

 

 part 1

 part 2

 part 3

We all know that the priciples of gold and silver where great, we dug it out of the ground, took it to the mint, and had it coined free of charge.  raw resources + labor + knowledge = wealth.  Gold/silver used to combine all three of them until the congress suspended the free coinage act.

I'll ask again, because I am a firm supporter of the principles of gold and silver, but if we wanted to go to the gold and silver today here is the four questions I need to have answered and I'll make a film supporting the gold standard tomorrow.

1. How much gold are we going to need? Give calculations.

2. Where is this gold going to come from.  Give sources.

3. How are we going to put this gold into circulation?  Lend it into circulation? Spend it into circulation?  Gift it into circulation?

4. What are we going to do with our current debt?

If anyone can come up with a way for the gold standard to actually work, I want to know about it, either that, or lets start figuring out a way to apply the priciples of gold and silver to our current monetary system?

 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments