So much for the new Liberty Dollar leader

[The Operative]

none of the things you listed was ---being on a gold standard.
Instead you list 1933 great depression cause as being taking us off the gold standard.
In fact when we were just colonist for over a hundred years the purchasing power of the gold and silver coin INCREASED! nor am i making the argument that there are no business down cycles on a gold standard. Cycles are the nature of everything even artificial systems like business.

He did not state that the cause of the Great Depression was being taken off the gold standard. The Great Depression began in 1929 and lasted close to 10 years. However, it is a known fact that countries that abandoned the gold standard earlier, rebounded from the Great Depression quicker than others who stuck to the gold standard. In fact, Japan, which had only adopted a gold standard just a few months before the depression, quickly abandoned the gold standard and the depression was very mild for them.

Look, take an upper-level money and banking course at a University and then come back to discuss money and banking.

[fortinbras]

One of the very pressing reasons for going off the Gold Standard in 1933 was that "gold clauses" in contracts were far too ubiquitous. These were clauses that said the contract, whatever it was for, would be paid entirely in gold coin. Not even gold certificates, but the gold coins themselves. Many of these contracts predated the 1929 stock market crash. But by 1933 it was credibly calculated that there weren't enough gold coins in the whole country to pay off all these contracts if payments were demanded at all once. The effect was that debtors were forced to pay premium prices to money changers for gold coins to satisfy the terms of the contracts, paying (with silver, silver certificates, FRNs, anything else) considerably more than the face value of the gold coins, which tended to drive up inflation generally. This phenomenon was undermining the Constitution's provision that Congress would regulate the value of money. Moreover, the US gold mining was being outstripped by USSR and South African gold mining, which would have required the US to pay premium prices to (unfriendly) foreign sources of metallic gold. It was, therefore, thought to be the best, or most practical, remedy to take the US off the gold standard and to cancel the portion of gold clauses that specified gold coin - allowing contracts to be paid in the same dollar amounts in any other form of legal tender.

[mutter]

none of the things you listed was ---being on a gold standard.
Instead you list 1933 great depression cause as being taking us off the gold standard.
In fact when we were just colonist for over a hundred years the purchasing power of the gold and silver coin INCREASED! nor am i making the argument that there are no business down cycles on a gold standard. Cycles are the nature of everything even artificial systems like business.

He did not state that the cause of the Great Depression was being taken off the gold standard. The Great Depression began in 1929 and lasted close to 10 years. However, it is a known fact that countries that abandoned the gold standard earlier, rebounded from the Great Depression quicker than others who stuck to the gold standard. In fact, Japan, which had only adopted a gold standard just a few months before the depression, quickly abandoned the gold standard and the depression was very mild for them.

Look, take an upper-level money and banking course at a University and then come back to discuss money and banking.

I quote "The Great Depression - lasted 10 years. Removal of gold standard in 1933"
Of course their recessions or depression lasted longer since they could just create credit or currency out of thin air instead of being bound by a gold standard. who needs to go take a class? some of the stupidest people I know think they are educated

[mutter]

One of the very pressing reasons for going off the Gold Standard in 1933 was that "gold clauses" in contracts were far too ubiquitous. These were clauses that said the contract, whatever it was for, would be paid entirely in gold coin. Not even gold certificates, but the gold coins themselves. Many of these contracts predated the 1929 stock market crash. But by 1933 it was credibly calculated that there weren't enough gold coins in the whole country to pay off all these contracts if payments were demanded at all once. The effect was that debtors were forced to pay premium prices to money changers for gold coins to satisfy the terms of the contracts, paying (with silver, silver certificates, FRNs, anything else) considerably more than the face value of the gold coins, which tended to drive up inflation generally. This phenomenon was undermining the Constitution's provision that Congress would regulate the value of money. Moreover, the US gold mining was being outstripped by USSR and South African gold mining, which would have required the US to pay premium prices to (unfriendly) foreign sources of metallic gold. It was, therefore, thought to be the best, or most practical, remedy to take the US off the gold standard and to cancel the portion of gold clauses that specified gold coin - allowing contracts to be paid in the same dollar amounts in any other form of legal tender.

Now there is a good answer! Informative and interesting. So why didnt we go to a silver standard or a diamond standard?

[The Operative]

He did not state that the cause of the Great Depression was being taken off the gold standard. The Great Depression began in 1929 and lasted close to 10 years. However, it is a known fact that countries that abandoned the gold standard earlier, rebounded from the Great Depression quicker than others who stuck to the gold standard. In fact, Japan, which had only adopted a gold standard just a few months before the depression, quickly abandoned the gold standard and the depression was very mild for them.

Look, take an upper-level money and banking course at a University and then come back to discuss money and banking.

I quote "The Great Depression - lasted 10 years. Removal of gold standard in 1933"
Of course their recessions or depression lasted longer since they could just create credit or currency out of thin air instead of being bound by a gold standard. who needs to go take a class? some of the stupidest people I know think they are educated

Mutter,

Read what I wrote very slowly. The countries that abandoned the gold standard RECOVERED or REBOUNDED quicker than the countries that remained on the gold standard. The countries that left the gold standard earlier had a SHORTER depression than the ones that stayed on the gold standard. Great Britain and Scandinavia left the gold standard in 1931. The economic recoveries in those countries occurred earlier than the countries that stayed on the gold standard, such as France, Belgium and Switzerland. The simple fact is that recessions and depressions have been shorter when OFF the gold standard.

[mutter]

He did not state that the cause of the Great Depression was being taken off the gold standard. The Great Depression began in 1929 and lasted close to 10 years. However, it is a known fact that countries that abandoned the gold standard earlier, rebounded from the Great Depression quicker than others who stuck to the gold standard. In fact, Japan, which had only adopted a gold standard just a few months before the depression, quickly abandoned the gold standard and the depression was very mild for them.

Look, take an upper-level money and banking course at a University and then come back to discuss money and banking.

I quote "The Great Depression - lasted 10 years. Removal of gold standard in 1933"
Of course their recessions or depression lasted longer since they could just create credit or currency out of thin air instead of being bound by a gold standard. who needs to go take a class? some of the stupidest people I know think they are educated

yup got that. Now read what I wrote about of course they did as they were no longer limited in the amount of currency they could print. A metal standard limits the amount of money you can have in circulation. No standard you can create as much as you want which of course will shorten any recession, as flooding the economy with currency and credit would cause a growth cycle to begin.

Mutter,

Read what I wrote very slowly. The countries that abandoned the gold standard RECOVERED or REBOUNDED quicker than the countries that remained on the gold standard. The countries that left the gold standard earlier had a SHORTER depression than the ones that stayed on the gold standard. Great Britain and Scandinavia left the gold standard in 1931. The economic recoveries in those countries occurred earlier than the countries that stayed on the gold standard, such as France, Belgium and Switzerland. The simple fact is that recessions and depressions have been shorter when OFF the gold standard.

[The Operative]

The countries that abandoned the gold standard RECOVERED or REBOUNDED quicker than the countries that remained on the gold standard.

Of course their recessions or depression lasted longer since they could just create credit or currency out of thin air instead of being bound by a gold standard.

What I wrote and what you wrote are exact opposites, so obviously you didn't get it. Either that or you didn't type what you meant. Economic cycles are going to happen. QUICKER recovery is a GOOD thing.

[cynicalflyer]

Norfed nor any of the people identified by the DOJ's nonsense will ever face a prison term nor will they ever get convicted of a crime.

Saving this one for the "Steve has to eat crow" file.
And yet somehow, when the NORFED folks a) do get convicted and b) do face prison time, Sybil will probably denying having posted this or blame a government conspiracy of some sort.

The government's plan was simple, destroy the liberty dollar by simply seizing, in other words commit theft, of everyone's warehoused silver so that people would stop using them. The government will never release the silver it seized and will keep the accusation going in to perpetuity without ever bringing it to court.

Half right. The government probably won't release the silver, given that it is the method and/or means of illegal counterfeiting.

[SteveSy]

Norfed nor any of the people identified by the DOJ's nonsense will ever face a prison term nor will they ever get convicted of a crime.

Saving this one for the "Steve has to eat crow" file.
And yet somehow, when the NORFED folks a) do get convicted and b) do face prison time, Sybil will probably denying having posted this or blame a government conspiracy of some sort.

The government's plan was simple, destroy the liberty dollar by simply seizing, in other words commit theft, of everyone's warehoused silver so that people would stop using them. The government will never release the silver it seized and will keep the accusation going in to perpetuity without ever bringing it to court.

Half right. The government probably won't release the silver, given that it is the method and/or means of illegal counterfeiting.

I'll donate a $100 to the board for its upkeep if and when they finally do something...However if you are wrong then you donate $100 to a charity of my choice. I've been here a while..let's set the end date to 3 years from now? That will give them 5 full years to get their act together. Certainly if their case was so strong 5 years is plenty of time.

I wish I could find the post where I bet someone that the accusation that Larken Rose was involved in kiddie porn was BS and nothing would ever come of it. The government has a habit of using bogus accusations to destroy things it seeks to eliminate.

[grixit]

The early Roman Republic had a simple system of trade in bars of metal, either copper or bronze, i forget which. A truly solid standard.

But guess what-- it was not considered "real" money by the standards of purists. Real money was cows, had been since the late stone age. We still use words like "pecuniary", which is derived from a latin word for cow. In fact the bars of metal were stamped with images of cows, just as today we print "dollar" on our frns.

Later they came up with a more sophisticated system. They took their standard bar of metal, amd called the length of this bar a foot, and the weight a pound. When such a bar was cut into 12 pieces were called "unca", the source of our words "inch" and "ounce". Thus they had weights and measures and purchasing power all together. But eventually they outgrew that system. There wasn't enough metal to meet the needs of a growing, urbanized population and an international commerce center. So the bar system disappeared and small coins becane standard. A few centuries later, in roman Britain, there was another metal shortage, not enough gold and silver for the number of coins needed. So the coins got diluted, and even counterfeited by locals who couldn't get hold of real ones. But even knowing the coins weren't "real" they used them, and business went on.

I could go through a lot of other events, such as the painful impact of south american gold on living standards in Spain and its neighbors. But you can look them up yourself.

The point is, there is no magic universal unit of exchange against which everything else can be measured. There are only generally agreed upon mediums that are good enough for the long term, and which we recognize as being in flux like everything else.

Also: long before Rome was even built, and even before there was paper to write checks on, merchants and governments had already worked out ways to extend credit so people could buy with money they didn't have yet.

But hey, you want to carry cows in your pocket-- feel free.

[Weston White]

Nope the Liberty Dollar does not try to pass itself off as U.S. Currency, as a FRN; it does not meet the legal definition of counterfeiting.

The law states nothing about private parities exchanging whatever medium they choose for the purchasing of goods or services, the legal implications are only upon the states and the federal government. Also well as the counterfeiting of FRN, which the Liberty Dollar does not do, or for that matter the Lakota’s or whatever other private class of currency.

Think about this if what you morons claim was actually true, the Liberty Dollar would have been shut down as of last year at the minimum and what about all those car washes and fun parks and casinos that issue you tokens, tickets, and chips, what about Disney Dollars and other sorted amusement park dollars, what about chits, those would all be forms of counterfeiting as well… according to your senseless logic anyway. All of these things work in the exact same fashion and based upon the same principles as the Liberty Dollar or Lakota's or other such currencies (the only major distinction being that with the Liberty or Lakota you can smelt it and have something precious to craft... this is because they are founded upon solid principles established within the U.S. Constitution).

This is topic is actually very good to point out the fatal flaw in the Quatloosian agenda, e.g. the Kahre case. The IRS hath been swooshed!


BTW, has anybody told you that you are a complete moron today? If not permit me.

[Weston White]

The tally-stick system seems to have worked as an all around good system.

Also do not forget about beaver skin or fur trading, a system of early North America.

However, the one system that has time after time proven to be a complete failure is the same one that our government has chosen to implement... and I thought we were suppose to learn from history!

[Gregg]

why do you all keep refering to FRNs as dollars? They are not regardless of what is printed on them. Nor are they money. dollars are a silver coin of X amount purity and weight. I ve not seen one since.......yea that long. Money is something that has an intrinsic value. FRNs have not been money since they were no longer redeemable in gold or silver. IE since they were backed by something. somewhere in 42 USC it states FRNs are debt obligations.
We wouldnt be in this financial meltdown if we used money instead of currency.
One big reason we have an income tax at all is to pull FRNs out of circulation so they dont devalue into hyperinflation.
Whom ever it was that said they know the value of the dollar is seriously mistaken. you can read the denomination off the note but thats not its value. its value is how much it can buy. Or its purchasing power. Which is down roughly 5000% since the inception of the Federal Reserve system. In short there can be no doubt the Fed Res system is a scam designed to create bust cycles where the rich buy up the real property in the country. Unless of course you are dumb enough or neive enough to belive all those people at the Fed have been so stupid for the last 96 years that they cant figure out how to keep the currnecy system stable.

You've read too many conspiracy books, and you're just wrong... most obviously in not recognizing that inflation hurts creditors to the benefit of debtors (you borrow $100 at todays value and pay it back at the later, in theroy lower, value)

I worked at the Fed, acutally the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, the Federal Reserve Board is a government institution, the Federal Reserve Banks are Private Instituions. The Rockafellers and Rothschildes don't won the fed, either, except to the extent that David Rockafeller (I know I can't spell it) once owned a large block of on of the banks...the Federal Reserve Banks are owned by the member banks who are required to have X amount of stock in thebank, stock that does not pay dividends. Every year, the Fed pays the Treasury a few billion, you see they do make a profit, and it must be turned over to the Treasury.

I'm not gonna write a book about it, but the Fed and leaving the Gold Standard has almost assuredly prevented at least one great depression since it was founded...or one net of the one that happened....suffice to say, if gold is the standard, gold supply limits the maximum wealth attainable...Federal Reseerve Notes are backed by the value added in goods and service in the economy which is a much better way to measure wealth creation. The job of the Fed is to match the money in circulation to the value added wealth creation..which would be easy except for the fact that they have to rely on 90 day old statistics and make decisions that are not evident for 3-6 months after they are made...

And all the trailor park militia companies plotting to put hte Fed governors up against the wall come the revelution haven't even figured out that the Federal Reserve System is more a benefit to them than it ever was or could be to rich people.

[Gregg]

Which is down roughly 5000% since the inception of the Federal Reserve system

We also need to apply a swift and painful penalty for irresponsible quoting of stupid untrue statistics like that one.

I asked my good friend Wiki what the price of bread was in the 1930s, the date some cite as the full implimentation of the Fdereal Reserve System...

Survey says!

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_was_the_ ... the_1930's

99 cents

So if the "purchasing power" of a dollar has decreased 5,000% since then, why bread should be $4950 now. Someone apply a slight correction to Mutter for that stupid quoted statistic...

Okay, I know, someone will say the Federeal Reserve System started in 1913, so you have bad numbers... so we'll do it both ways...

Price of bread in 1913?

6 cents.... a dramatically different number, yes, but at 5000% that still makes Wonderbread $300 a loaf today.....

for reference, here are some prices/indicies from 1913, do with them what you will, but any attempt to justify "5000%" will get you banged in the head by Webhick's newest science expiriment

1913 prices:

Average Income $1,296.00
Loaf of Bread $.06
Gallon of Gas $.12
Gallon of milk $.36
New Car $490.00
New House $3,395.00
Dow Jones Index 78

[Gregg]

Interestingly the only thing that looks like it's increased 100 times, is the Dow....

[The Operative]

why do you all keep refering to FRNs as dollars? They are not regardless of what is printed on them. Nor are they money. dollars are a silver coin of X amount purity and weight. I ve not seen one since.......yea that long. Money is something that has an intrinsic value. FRNs have not been money since they were no longer redeemable in gold or silver. IE since they were backed by something. somewhere in 42 USC it states FRNs are debt obligations.
We wouldnt be in this financial meltdown if we used money instead of currency.
One big reason we have an income tax at all is to pull FRNs out of circulation so they dont devalue into hyperinflation.
Whom ever it was that said they know the value of the dollar is seriously mistaken. you can read the denomination off the note but thats not its value. its value is how much it can buy. Or its purchasing power. Which is down roughly 5000% since the inception of the Federal Reserve system. In short there can be no doubt the Fed Res system is a scam designed to create bust cycles where the rich buy up the real property in the country. Unless of course you are dumb enough or neive enough to belive all those people at the Fed have been so stupid for the last 96 years that they cant figure out how to keep the currnecy system stable.

You've read too many conspiracy books, and you're just wrong... most obviously in not recognizing that inflation hurts creditors to the benefit of debtors (you borrow $100 at todays value and pay it back at the later, in theroy lower, value)

I worked at the Fed, acutally the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, the Federal Reserve Board is a government institution, the Federal Reserve Banks are Private Instituions. The Rockafellers and Rothschildes don't won the fed, either, except to the extent that David Rockafeller (I know I can't spell it) once owned a large block of on of the banks...the Federal Reserve Banks are owned by the member banks who are required to have X amount of stock in thebank, stock that does not pay dividends. Every year, the Fed pays the Treasury a few billion, you see they do make a profit, and it must be turned over to the Treasury.

I'm not gonna write a book about it, but the Fed and leaving the Gold Standard has almost assuredly prevented at least one great depression since it was founded...or one net of the one that happened....suffice to say, if gold is the standard, gold supply limits the maximum wealth attainable...Federal Reseerve Notes are backed by the value added in goods and service in the economy which is a much better way to measure wealth creation. The job of the Fed is to match the money in circulation to the value added wealth creation..which would be easy except for the fact that they have to rely on 90 day old statistics and make decisions that are not evident for 3-6 months after they are made...

And all the trailor park militia companies plotting to put hte Fed governors up against the wall come the revelution haven't even figured out that the Federal Reserve System is more a benefit to them than it ever was or could be to rich people.

Gregg,

While I agree that many of mutter's ideas about the Federal Reserve are conspiracy theory nonsense, there is a flaw in your reply. Most of it is correct though.

National banks are required by law to own stock in one of the Federal Reserve Banks, which makes them member banks. State banks may become member banks if they meet certain requirements, though it is not a requirement. While the stock does not confer any traditional rights of ownership of the bank, the stock does indeed earn a 6% dividend per year. The only other right provided by the stock ownership is the right to vote for six of the nine members of the board of directors of the district bank. Each member bank gets a single vote regardless of the number of shares the member bank holds.

[Gregg]

none of the things you listed was ---being on a gold standard.
Instead you list 1933 great depression cause as being taking us off the gold standard.
In fact when we were just colonist for over a hundred years the purchasing power of the gold and silver coin INCREASED! nor am i making the argument that there are no business down cycles on a gold standard. Cycles are the nature of everything even artificial systems like business.

He did not state that the cause of the Great Depression was being taken off the gold standard. The Great Depression began in 1929 and lasted close to 10 years. However, it is a known fact that countries that abandoned the gold standard earlier, rebounded from the Great Depression quicker than others who stuck to the gold standard. In fact, Japan, which had only adopted a gold standard just a few months before the depression, quickly abandoned the gold standard and the depression was very mild for them.

Look, take an upper-level money and banking course at a University and then come back to discuss money and banking.

that's what my doctorate is in, I'll be glad to answer questions...but being brief is not easy when you start talking about money

[The Operative]

that's what my doctorate is in, I'll be glad to answer questions...but being brief is not easy when you start talking about money

That is the truth.

[Gregg]

why do you all keep refering to FRNs as dollars? They are not regardless of what is printed on them. Nor are they money. dollars are a silver coin of X amount purity and weight. I ve not seen one since.......yea that long. Money is something that has an intrinsic value. FRNs have not been money since they were no longer redeemable in gold or silver. IE since they were backed by something. somewhere in 42 USC it states FRNs are debt obligations.
We wouldnt be in this financial meltdown if we used money instead of currency.
One big reason we have an income tax at all is to pull FRNs out of circulation so they dont devalue into hyperinflation.
Whom ever it was that said they know the value of the dollar is seriously mistaken. you can read the denomination off the note but thats not its value. its value is how much it can buy. Or its purchasing power. Which is down roughly 5000% since the inception of the Federal Reserve system. In short there can be no doubt the Fed Res system is a scam designed to create bust cycles where the rich buy up the real property in the country. Unless of course you are dumb enough or neive enough to belive all those people at the Fed have been so stupid for the last 96 years that they cant figure out how to keep the currnecy system stable.

You've read too many conspiracy books, and you're just wrong... most obviously in not recognizing that inflation hurts creditors to the benefit of debtors (you borrow $100 at todays value and pay it back at the later, in theroy lower, value)

I worked at the Fed, acutally the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, the Federal Reserve Board is a government institution, the Federal Reserve Banks are Private Instituions. The Rockafellers and Rothschildes don't won the fed, either, except to the extent that David Rockafeller (I know I can't spell it) once owned a large block of on of the banks...the Federal Reserve Banks are owned by the member banks who are required to have X amount of stock in thebank, stock that does not pay dividends. Every year, the Fed pays the Treasury a few billion, you see they do make a profit, and it must be turned over to the Treasury.

I'm not gonna write a book about it, but the Fed and leaving the Gold Standard has almost assuredly prevented at least one great depression since it was founded...or one net of the one that happened....suffice to say, if gold is the standard, gold supply limits the maximum wealth attainable...Federal Reseerve Notes are backed by the value added in goods and service in the economy which is a much better way to measure wealth creation. The job of the Fed is to match the money in circulation to the value added wealth creation..which would be easy except for the fact that they have to rely on 90 day old statistics and make decisions that are not evident for 3-6 months after they are made...

And all the trailor park militia companies plotting to put hte Fed governors up against the wall come the revelution haven't even figured out that the Federal Reserve System is more a benefit to them than it ever was or could be to rich people.

Gregg,

While I agree that many of mutter's ideas about the Federal Reserve are conspiracy theory nonsense, there is a flaw in your reply. Most of it is correct though.

National banks are required by law to own stock in one of the Federal Reserve Banks, which makes them member banks. State banks may become member banks if they meet certain requirements, though it is not a requirement. While the stock does not confer any traditional rights of ownership of the bank, the stock does indeed earn a 6% dividend per year. The only other right provided by the stock ownership is the right to vote for six of the nine members of the board of directors of the district bank. Each member bank gets a single vote regardless of the number of shares the member bank holds.

You are correct...although I was always taught to say that there was one benefit of sotck ownership, it gives the bank access to the discount window...but in the real world that applies whether a state bank is a member or not... it's been a long time....on the dividends, I think I was confused about the surplus payments made to the Treasury....also, I believe there are some minute differences in the New York Bank, aside from the open market desk....

I was working there when I was going to school, my job title was "Evil Oppression Specialist" but mostly what I did was call 400 some companies every week and asked them a long or short survey, them compiled data to turn into a report blah blah blah...real nuts and bolts stuff...and this when Lotus 123 was fairly new...but taking an active part in ruling hte world was well worth the experience

[Gregg]

that's what my doctorate is in, I'll be glad to answer questions...but being brief is not easy when you start talking about money

That is the truth.

Well, I've already shown I can make glaring mistakes because my memory is getting old....hell, I build cars now....but I still have the basics down and in all modesty, the basics will still leave a long way ahead of almost everyone in the general population, which kind of sucks cause we should teach this stuff in High School