and why those who do not are idiots, shysters, or thieves.
Buying stock in gold mines or buying gold and saving it is foolish. Gold is meant to be spent, not on worthless ventures, but wisely. We are suppost to be here as a movement of a R3volution. I cannot imagine Revolutionaries who fought for our freedoms, sitting around sqandering gold as a tactic to win their freedom. They would have spent it on something more practical. In fact most Revolutionaries from those days had very little gold to trade with as they preferred to trade with other commodities, sometimes as simple as butter or alluring as whiskey. But my point is not to draw arguements for or against gold as a store of wealth, but to point out that gold and silver are not going to save us. If we think that by buying gold and storing it is going to empower us as individuals or empower our movement, wrong. By taking our money and gold and spending it on items that will free us from dependence on government would be the wise thing to do, and is the only way to be empowered.
The Currency Act of 1764 is an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain (citation 4 Geo. III c. 34) which prohibited the American colonies from issuing paper currency of any form....The colonies created their own money, called Colonial Scrip, before this happened. This money was government-issued fiat currency and had little or no inherent value, as Colonial Scrip was not backed by a Gold or Silver Standard. ....Franklin and many others thought this Act to be the true cause of the American Revolution.....After Franklin had explained [the benefits of paper money] to the British Government as the real cause of prosperity, they immediately passed laws, forbidding the payment of taxes in that money. This produced such great inconvenience and misery to the people, that it was the principal cause of the Revolution.
Right here in the constitution article 10 all debt can only be paid with gold and silver.
"And be it further enacted, That if any of the gold or silver coins which shall be struck or coined at the said mint shall be debased or made worse as to the proportion of fine gold or fine silver therein contained, or shall be of less weight or value than the same ought to be pursuant to the directions of this act, through the default or with the connivance of any of the officers or persons who shall be employed at the said mint, for the purpose of profit or gain, or otherwise with a fraudulent intent, and if any of the said officers or persons shall embezzle any of the metals which shall at any time be committed to their charge for the purpose of being coined, or any of the coins which shall be struck or coined at the said mint, every such officer or person who shall commit any or either of the said offences, shall be deemed guilty of felony, and shall suffer death."
Ron Paul "Sign Wave Across the USA" -- November 5th!
Isn't it ironic that we have to defend gold and silver as money on a website that is "dedicated to restoring Constitutional government to the United States of America?"
It kinda makes me want to go back to discussing militant homosexual radioactive polar bears, or something else equally important.
"the only thing that keeps the banking system from failing is general ignorance about how the banking system works."
You'd always be wrong and people would cut and past Wikipedia articles to prove it.
Think Star Trek (techniolgy to abundance to freedom), not money-based, faux resource scarcity-driven enslavement.
does your crack pipe have a cool looking star trek emblem on it?
Everyone here knows a free market makes abundance. I made a blog about it in my signature. Zeitgeist has nothing to do with far out theories-it's just the logical endpoint of what happens when a free market isn't overtaken by monopolies.
Not that quasi-New Age-Socialistic Zeitgeist bunk again? There was a very good reason money came to be used by people, it performs a definite social and psychological function.
"So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent...to put shackles upon sleeping men.
— Voltairine de Cleyre (1886-1912)
"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun
Don't call it enslavement just because resources are scarce. That doesn't make sense. The problem remains government monopoly on money.
...sadly, is not yet available, so in the meantime...
Would you prefer a currency that is backed up by a defined and verifiable material standard (gold, silver, peanut butter?), or one whose value is guaranteed by political integrity?
The Freedom Formula: Au + Ag + Cu + Pb
dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
West of 89
a novel of another america
While I agree with the fundamentals of gold and silver, I cannot help but think that this article is overstating its importance. Certainly the fiat currency has done great damage to our economy and livelihood, but to blame it for the two-income homes is too simplistic. It is a diversion that keeps us from recognizing our own duplicity in what is happening in our nation. Until we can recognize that we, as a culture, have some serious problems, we cannot hope to correct them.
I still maintain that one of the biggest influences (if not the biggest) is greed. Consider this debt report website and specifically the personal debt.
Instead of saving and slowly improving our lifestyles, we chose the easy route of credit. Children expected to have the same lifestyles as their parents immediately upon graduating from college without realizing that their parents had scrimped and saved for decades to achieve the standard of living they have today. I too fell victim to this mentality by buying a house far larger than my needs as soon as I was able to get the loan. While I have been fortunate to pay off most of that debt, I could have avoided debt completely by buying a modest one bedroom house and saving up for the upgrade.
It is easy to blame the central bankers and corrupt lenders for the mortgage crisis, but the fact remains that people accepted those loans. They were not forced to take loans or purchase houses and prices way beyond their means. No one was forced to sign at the point of a gun. We brought that on ourselves.
Yes, we need a more solid monetary policy. Yes, the central bankers are stealing wealth from the American people. But I see a deeper and more fundamental problem in our nation: we have been consumed by greed, selfishness, and pride. This article threatens to continue this trend by its almost reverential view of gold and silver. Money is a tool; it is not the goal.
Far more important, in my mind, than money is the character of the people.
A reverential view of any kind of tool, be it political activism, economic theory, military strategy, or, as you stated, gold and silver, will make things worse in the end.
How do people pay for things when gold runs out?
Who currently owns the most gold (private, small time investors or megabillionaires)?
What's wrong with the original colonial scrip that scared foreign banks so much?
When gold is used as money, it doesn't run out, it circulates.
The largest holdings of gold in the world is supposedly at the United States Bullion Depository in Kentucky.
Colonial script was a paper based currency that was hyperinflated.
“The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.”
-- Herbert Spencer
Colonial scrip was the reason the colonies were so prosperous. It was the introduction of the Central Bank by Al Hamilton that destroyed the prosperity by tying interest to money. http://www.kamron.com/economics/people_who_opposed_the_FRB.htm
As for recirculating gold, do gold chains get recirculated too? What's the markup for spot price in your local deli? Do people just melt down their gold and silver instead of using monetized units (like the Franklin 0.50 piece)?
They do in India. High karat jewelry is used as money. They have this amazing invention called a scale that weighs the precious metal in order to determine how many goods and services said chain can purchase.
Once upon a time in this country one was able to take gold and silver to the mint and have it turned into coin. The purpose of a coin is to represent a standardized weight and purity of an amount of metal; so instead of having to do an acid scratch test and weigh the metal with each transaction, these factors were already known.
Coins are nothing more than standardized, accurate measures of weight and purity of precious metals with a pretty design on them. They are stores or wealth with no counter party risk because they are not dependent on another entity to give them value, only the parties within the transaction.
Colonial Script was the reason for the Constitution to state that only gold and silver be used as money and the prohibition of bills of credit. From the time of the Constitution no fiat scrip was issued by Congress, well until Lincoln with the Greenback. Prior to that, especially during the War the issuance of Continentals was a disaster on the prosperity of the country. Remember the term: "not worth a Continental".
Now earlier in the 1700s, the colonies issued scrip with just as disastrous results, the inflation rate absolutely destroyed commerce, prosperity and people's lives. We're talking almost "Zimbabwean" inflation rates...the British Crown had to step in and forbid the issue of all State fiat money at that point.
He's been quoted as saying "England's refusal to allow the colonies to issue and use their own currency was one of the main reason for the revolution."
I also read that the war with England was what caused the massive inflation.
"Tyrants fear nothing more than insubordination"
"It's just one big club... and WE ain't in it!"
That last reference, the currency act, was passed by GREAT BRITAIN to prohibit the American Colonies from using Colonial Scrip or making their own money because they were becoming too prosperous.
Once again, show me some references.
Ah, yes Good Ole Ben Franklin who loved fiat money until he saw what it did and thankfully he changed his mind about the crap of colonial scrip.
"A Short History of Paper Money and Banking in the United States" by T.W. Ustick 1833 "By the late 1750's Connecticut suffered price inflation by 800%, the Carolina's had inflated by 900%, Massachusetts by 1000% and Rhode Island by 2300%."
In fact JS, what was seen was a type of Fiat Boom for a while, that is until the inflation ate away at the prosperity, as it always does. Between 1756 and 1763 the forced use of fiat currency "colonial scrip" compelled people to hoard real money [gold and silver from various countries] and only use the increasingly worthless fiat scrip.
"The Colonial Monetary Standard of Massachusetts" in the Economic History Review #27, issue November 1974
Now by 1775 the money supply issued by the colonies was $12 Million, by June of that year the Continental Congress issued another $2 Million and authorized a future issuance of another $1 Million. By the end of that year it was forced to issue another $3 Million. In total, within 5 years the Continental Congress had issued over $227 Million Continentals.
So, in 1775, a Continental valued at 1 Dollar in Gold, by 1779 it was valued at less than a penny. George Washington's comment was "A wagon load of money will scarcely purchase a wagon load of provisions."
"Observations on the Article Etats-Unis" June 22, 1786 by Thomas Jefferson
"It will be asked how will the two masses of Continental and of State money have cost the people of the United States 72 Millions of Dollars, when they are to be redeemed now with about 6 Million? I answer that the difference, being 66 Millions, has been lost on the paper bills separately by the successive holders of them. Everyone, through whose hands a bill passed, lost on that bill what it lost in value during the time it was in his hand. This was a real tax on him; and in this way the people of the United States actually contributed those 66 Millions of Dollars during the war, and by a mode of taxation the most oppressive of all because the most unequal of all."
It appears that Jefferson was well aware of what happened and the real cost of colonial scrip.
Oh, by the way, I have all 50 volumes of the writings of Benjamin Franklin...would you like a few quotes from him after he changed his mind about fiat currencies?
I would also recommend that you read:
"The Financial History of the United States" by Bolles Vol. 1, 1896
"Economic History of the American People". Bogart 1930
"Paper Money in New Jersey 1668-1775" by Kemmerer 1956
"History of the American Revolution by Ramsay 1791
And, for perhaps the most exhaustive economic history of our country I would highly recommend you read all volumes of "Conceived in Liberty" by Murray Rothbard.
of 1764. I'm sure you know England forced the colonies to use bonds instead of colonial scrip after the act was passed. These bonds were charged with 31% interest.
Before 1764 those colonies you mentioned were mismanaged not having the notes generated directly from the government. http://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/QR/QR811.pdf
My whole point is fiat currency works in the Pennsylvania model of scrip where government is the only issuer of credit.
Ah, the Pennsylvania model…indeed Franklin extolled colonial scrip by saying that: “New York and New Jersey have also increased greatly during the same period, with the use of paper money; so that it does not appear to be of the ruinous nature ascribed to it.”
It is interesting however, that a year later he noted “the streets are filled with unemployed beggars, just as they were in England.” He quickly changed his tune about paper money, even in Pennsylvania. Now, while it is true that prior to 1764 there was a great deal of prosperity in the colonies, it was not primarily due to the issuance of colonial scrip. There was a great deal of trade occurring at the time, bartering and all types of foreign coin circulating throughout the colonies in addition to colonial scrip. The primary reason the colonies issued scrip was to pay taxes to the Crown, when the Crown refused such payments then of course, the taxes had to be paid in coin and the colonist didn’t particularly care for that, who would blame them when they could simply print their tax obligations instead prior to 1764. It was after all, a pretty impressive trick while it lasted.
They could send their tax obligations as colonial scrip. Scrip was used as a loan against a person's land and a credit for that person. That person paid off that loan to the scrip issuer and was allowed loans after the scrip was paid off.
Yep, they were issuing scrip, in part, as a means of payment instead of using real money...as I said, I don't blame them, do you?
I thought it was the source of all knowledge!
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: