Topic: Gold and Silver
The Golden Rule... Is Gold a safe hedge in times of economic crisis? Would a return to the "Gold Standard" resolve our current economic woes?--it would be a good start on a better path but--NO!!!--and here's why--Ron Paul has wisely referred to a "commodities" [plural] backed currency--which would include Gold--but not just Gold/precious metals alone--much more than this would still have to be done...by Michael
(libertarian)
Saturday, December 13, 2008
"The Golden Rule"=he who has all the Gold makes all the Rules--or so the social evolutionists would have us to believe...
...how much of an antithesis is this to the true Golden Rule!?!
...nonetheless, a currency backed by Gold/Silver (i.e. precious metals) alone is by all means preferable to a fiat (paper only) currency--which is essentially just a "promise to pay back promises with promises" and there it ends [but herein there is an ulterior motive]...
The notion of a fiat currency is in itself somewhat spurious, if not blasphemous--and, as Ron Paul explained, it enables Government to commit Fraud (and for thoroughly informed self-interests to enrich themselves at the expense of others).
A currency backed by precious metals is almost just as easily manipulated as is a fiat currency. A precious metals' standard has not prevented multiple "economic crisises"/recessions/depressions/collapses in a long historical record of such in the past.
To illustrate both the ridiculousness and the confusion of the totally abstract form of economics and finance we have superimposed upon us today, I present this personally paraphrased version of a satire which first appeared in Lloyd's Bank Monthly Review, May 1939. It is presented as a conversation between a Socrates sort of character from another planet and an economist of the time from this planet, and it quite well illustrates the comical nature of what so many today have been deceived into regarding as being "valuable."
"SOCRATES: I see that your chief piece of money carries a legend affirming that it is a promise to pay the bearer the sum of one dollar. What is this thing, a dollar, of which payment is thus promised?
ECONOMIST: A dollar is the American unit of account.
SOCRATES: So there is, I suppose, some concrete object which embodies more firmly that abstract unit of account than this paper promise?
ECONOMIST: No, there is no such object, Socrates.
SOCRATES: Indeed? Then what your Bank promises is to give the holder of this promise another promise stamped with a different number in case he regards the number stamped on his promise in some way ill-omened or to be bad luck?
ECONOMIST: It would seem to be promising something of that kind.
SOCRATES: So that in order to be in a position to keep its promises all the Bank has to do is keep a supply of such paper promises stamped with all sorts of different numbers?
ECONOMIST: By no means, Socrates, that would make its balance-sheet a mockery, and in the eyes of our people there is held a certain awe and holiness in a balance-sheet. The Bank has to keep a store of Government Securities and *a store of Gold.
* [Since the removal of the gold standard (Nixon, 1971), our money is only a promise backed by promises to pay back promises with promises...a thing of real and enduring VALUE!!!]
SOCRATES: What are Government Securities?
ECONOMIST: Promises by the Government to pay certain sums of money at certain dates.
SOCRATES: What are sums of money? Do you mean such promisory notes as dollars?
ECONOMIST: I suppose that I do.
SOCRATES: So these promises to pay promises are considered to be in some way more solid and more sacred than the promises themselves?
ECONOMIST: It would appear that they are considered to be so.
SOCRATES: I see. Now tell me about the gold. It has to be of a certain weight, I suppose?
ECONOMIST: Not of a certain weight, but of certain value in terms of promises.
SOCRATES: So that the less each of its promises are worth, the more promises the Bank can lawfully make?
ECONOMIST: There are complications, Socrates, but it seems to amount to something of that sort.
SOCRATES : Do you find that your monetary system works well?
ECONOMIST: Pretty well, thank you, Socrates, on the whole.
SOCRATES: That would have to be then, I suppose, not because of the rather strange rules which you have told me about, but because it is administered by men of ability and wisdom?
ECONOMIST: It would seem that such must be the reason, rather than the rules themselves."
So as it turns out, historically, if the value of the store of precious metals reserve is allowed to be manipulated by the same unit of account/currency that it represents, it is no more stable than a fiat currency.
As Ron Paul has stated, a return to a sound system of currency would include that it be backed by commodities=plural, i.e. precious metals and other commodities...
...but in order to ensure that the currency/unit of account could not be used to inordinately manipulate the value of the reserve of commodities that backs it something quite a bit more radical would also have to occur...
The mechanisms whereby money/currency can reproduce itself (exponentially), apart and divorced from any actual increase in the amount of the production of the Physical Wealth that it represents, must be removed--I speak here of the credit/debt/interest/compound interest based systems--these are, after all, only just contrivances, however ingenious and complex they might be, that allow the Parasites to have a claim on what the Producers have labored to produce...
Conversely, mechanisms must be put into place whereby any expansion in the amount of money/currency put into circulation can be verified by an equivalent expansion of Physical Production. The production of money/currency must occur in tandem with the production of the real, Physical Wealth that it represents...
This would be the only degree of regulation; i.e. safeguard mechanisms that prevent money/currency from outrunning the actual production of the Physical Wealth that it represents and those that keep it from unduly influencing the value of the Physical Wealth that it represents...
...in determining these factors, the Congress of the US should exercise its Constitutionally defined obligation to issue currency and determine the value thereof...
"ALTERNATIVE ECONOMICS
Part IV
A Dollar is Worth a Dozen Eggs
Somehow we have almost all come to believe that money is Wealth, but it is not! Money simply represents Wealth. Money is a financial system whereby True Wealth is monetized in order to facilitate its distribution. It is in this Monetization and Distribution of True Wealth that things have gone awry.
There is nothing inherently wrong with money. It serves a necessary and useful function in that it represents a unit of value in terms of True Wealth. But somehow we have come to place the value upon the abstract rather than upon the tangible!
Ask yourself this: "Is a dozen eggs worth a dollar or is a dollar worth a dozen eggs?"
The vast majority would answer that the dozen eggs is worth a dollar...but is this so? In this view the dollar is given the value when it has no inherent value of its own, other than those things of real value which it represents.
The dollar is abstract in its conception and application...it is really nothing more than just a piece of paper...but the dozen eggs is tangible and of a degree of real value in terms of nutrition. So a dollar is worth a dozen eggs.
Somehow we have had the greatest scam of all times pulled over on us--effectively "...making the ephah [bushel] small [insignificant] and the shekel [money] great..." (Amos 8:5).
But it is such a total reversal in our thinking which must take place in order to establish and function within an Alternative Economic realm!
Under the current system and application of economics and finance it is such that the question, "How much is a dozen eggs worth [in terms of a dollar]?" would be considered normal. In light of Alternative Economic Theory the question might be rephrased, "How much is a dollar worth in terms of a dozen eggs?"
If a dozen eggs is priced at 80 cents then the relative value, or representative value, of the dollar is increased because more eggs can be bought for the dollar...but the value of the eggs remains unchanged in terms of nutritional value.
If a dozen eggs is priced at $1.20 then the relative value of the dollar is decreased because fewer eggs can be bought for the dollar...but the value of the eggs remains constant.
When the prices of commodities goes up or down it is in reality the relative value, or purchasing power, of the dollar that is fluctuating, not the value of the commodities.
Now the price of a pound of butter or of a dozen eggs or of a pound of meat or of a ton of grain might, and indeed does, fluctuate a great deal...but the value thereof remains constant in terms of nutrition and calories. So then why does the price vary so wildly?
"Expert" economists might point out that the volume of the commodity which is produced might cause the price to change; the price being low when there is a surplus and an abundance or high when there is a scarcity or high demand...but if it is said that the price which the producer receives is low because of a surplus, then why is it so often unchanged or higher at the consumer level? If the price is low because of abundance, then I must also ask, "Does this mean that there are fewer malnourished and starving people in the world during this time of abundance?"
Perhaps it is time that we consider the ends to the means employed in economics and finance as seen in practice today."
...a very good friend and brother in Christ once asked me, quite a few years ago, during a previous Recession, if I had ever considered investing in Gold as a security against hard times--I replied to him, no, I'd only thought about investing in a piece of land and growing Food on it--then, if hard times hit, I'd have his Gold...
In His Love,
Michael
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 10 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Michael only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Michael is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
You said; "As Ron Paul has stated, a return to a sound system of currency would include that it be backed by commodities=plural, i.e. precious metals and other commodities..."
Could you please supply the reference to Ron Paul's observations as stated above?
Ron Paul is a strict Constitutionalist per the following:Article I, Section 10, Clause 1: "No State shall…coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debt."
In the book, "The Gold Standard," Ron Paul wrote how to restore gold as currency without mentioning anything about "commodities backing."
You can read that chapter here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul431.html
If you have something he has written or said that's different than this, I'd like to see it. I'm personally not aware of such, but I'd like to analyze the verbiage for myself.
In his interview with RussiaToday Ron Paul mentions US currency twice. The first time he says, backed by a commodity. The second he says, backed by commodities...I guess one has to draw his own conclusions here--or ask Ron Paul himself...
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2008-12-13 09:52:58
Hi Michael,
The best place to find out what Dr. Paul says is at The Ron Paul Library The last thing anyone needs to do is speak for Dr. Paul because he is a prolific writer and has been throughout his career. One of my strongest negative reactions from my experience working in the Ron Paul grass roots movement over the past 18 months has been people who mis-speak for Dr. Paul to promote their own version of what they think he said.
I couldn't find two people in 100 who could accurately summarize Dr. Paul's positions on currency, the role of federal government and foreign policy. These are his top three talking points yet many of his followers have no clue what he has said or written about these things. I have heard people make up stuff that would burn Dr. Paul's ears off if he knew they were attributing such statist nonsense to him.
I agree that whenever there is a dispute about what Dr. Paul has advocated, you do indeed ask Dr. Paul as you suggested. The Ron Paul Library is the best place to start. I would not start at any of the political sites like Campaign for Liberty or Restore the Republic simply because they are political organizations with obvious bias. Bias is fine for politics but not for seeking out reliable source information.
Regarding your article, I agree with your premise, there is no "magic bullet" that makes the future easy and predictable. Many things must change, not just a few basic ones. I have never heard anyone argue this point.
There is an important distinction between a currency measured by a standard and a currency backed by a commodity. For me, this is the most important thread in Dr. Paul's writings on the topic because it defines the arguments involved in determining the goals, and therefore, the actions necessary to achieve those goals.
Just saying a fiat currency is "by all means preferable" is presumptive unless the question is asked, "For what purpose?" When Dr. Paul talks about currency and monetary policy he always links the purpose, promoting the most individual liberty and least Federal involvement. Liberty and limited government and sound currency are all part of the same solution.
You did not state a purpose for your assertion. Opponents of your position do not agree with your assumed purpose. Their support of fiat currency is because it suits their purpose, not because it thwarts yours. Their purpose is to empower the state and override the foibles of individuals wielding liberty.
The struggle isn't over whose notion of sound currency is stronger or more logical more biblical, more constitutional or whatever. The struggle for liberty depends on providing incentives for individuals to choose liberty over oppression rather than on talking supporters of fiat currency into seeing things your way.
They are your enemies, not some poor misguided ignorant unenlightened folks who only need to be evangelized. So, my point is that it is a waste of time to focus on the nature of various potential fiscal and monetary systems until the question of "For what purpose?", has been answered. Before the purpose has been established you may as well be arguing that Blue is a far better color than Yellow.
Today, our culture, is heavily laced with incentives for individuals to choose oppression. This is a fear based tactic that works very well for the leftist agenda. Our currency is just one of many ways these forces are brought to bear. The key to fighting this relentless cultural pressure to cave in to collectivism is to understand their purpose then undermine THAT. Find ways to get people to believe they have a right to act in their own best interests.
The two statements you mentioned went something like this (with my comments behind it);
"If money were developed in the private market, it would have to be backed up, promised, with a commodity behind it."
and
"If they do not use commodities they'll (the central banks money) be less successful and won't last."
I've also found other statements of his on this issue that might clarify things for our mutual understanding:
"If we care about the financial system, the tax system, and the monumental debt we’re accumulating, we must start talking about the benefits and discipline that come only with a commodity standard of money – money the government and central banks absolutely cannot create out of thin air."
and
"The purchasing power of commodity money, i.e. gold, however, goes up if the government devalues the circulating fiat currency."
and
"One of the characteristics of commodity money – one that originated naturally in the marketplace – is that it must serve as a store of value. Gold and silver meet that test – paper does not."
and
"Gold, or any acceptable market commodity money, is required to preserve liberty."
and finally;
"If we care about the financial system, the tax system, and the monumental debt we’re accumulating, we must start talking about the benefits and discipline that come only with a commodity standard of money – money the government and central banks absolutely cannot create out of thin air."
These quotes are all from one article written in March of 2008: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul445.html
In the first statements made by Paul in the video you posted, it 's rather confusing with much of what Ron Paul has said in the past on the gold standard issue because he mentioned "in the private market." I haven't read any detailed comments regarding this before.
It is my assumption here that he is saying that if the private market were allowed to create currency, "backed by commodities," then this would be a better alternative in a "free" market environment:" in which the People decided which currency to put their faith behind than the current fiat system. Personally though, I've never seen him use the term, "backed by" before and it could have just been a mistake on his part.
I think the second statement where he uses the term "commodities" can be interpreted to mean "silver and gold," which he clarifies as the commodities that have maintained a "store of value," as opposed to other commodities in the other quotes I posted of his above.
It was your interpretation, "i.e. precious metals and other commodities..." where I can't find any mention of the "other" in any of his writings.
Personally I don't have issue with copper, platinum, palladium, nickel, etc. being used as the "coin" defined by the constitution. They are metals that our Founding Father's may or may not have considered. In a strict reading of the constitution, only "gold and silver" passed their test. They knew of the history of those two metals.
We can both agree on the reasoning for commodity backed money but I assume that you naturally are aware of the dangers that lie with any currency "backed" by commodities via Paul's writings.
I think that Ron Paul may in fact be OK with other commodities from what I have read. I don't think he wants said commodities to be "backed by," do you? Wouldn't you think that was a Freudian slip on his behalf?
Or I'd like to see more examples of his use of the word "backed by."
I'll give you a "thumbs up" for the article because of the two stories you gave us readers as well as because you got me to research these little, but important differences ("backed by" and "other commodities") in understanding what Paul has written on the gold standard through the years versus what he said in that one interview.
I could very well be wrong about his thinking, and you're right, the best way is to ask him, but it's hard for me to fathom him straying too far from the Constitution.
Thank you for your insightful and informative discussion–it has added ingredients to the mix that will have to simmer for a while as I contemplate and attempt to define, refine and resolve within my own mind this complex issue.
I must admit, in reality, I am probably more or less a simpleton as it relates to economics and finance. But this is somewhat intentional on Thoreau’s advice, "Simplify, simplify, simplify." And is related to his reply when he was asked if he read the newspapers (the mainstream media of his day–kind of like asking someone if they watched CNN/FoxNews/or MSNBC today) to which he replied something to the effect of, "No, I do not want to blunt my sense of what is True so much." In considering economics and finance I have avoided certain study because I did not want to blunt my sense of what is True so much.
In complexity I see the facilitation of disguise for pretense and ulterior motive–in the realm of economics and finance this provides an avenue for exploitation and oppression via fraud–creating an environment wherein Parasites can prosper at the expense of the Producers who labor honestly to convert Natural Resources into Usable Products–within my personal belief system, during this brief physical existence, the most we can hope to do is to enjoy the fruits of our Labor–and this is denied us by exploitative systems of economics and finance.
At the point in my life when I became interested in economics and finance (the personal circumstances behind which is another story in itself) I decided to purchase a college level textbook on the subject. I found three different ones available and only one of the three discussed Agriculture! The word "agriculture" did not even appear in the index of two out of three! Simplify, simplify, simplify. This told me that the prevailing economic school of thought was more interested in money itself and the complex manipulations thereof in order to facilitate exploitation than it was in providing stability and prosperity and in providing to people what they needed, i.e. what money should rather honestly and rightfully represent.
I cannot say that I am not heavily influenced by a certain school of thought in economics and finance–but it is so obscure–it has been more ignored and unacknowledged than the altruism of Ron Paul–and for much longer. Dr. Charles Walters, Jr., founder and editor of AcresUSA . He is, I suppose, a "physical" economist–in other words an economy begins with what people need, i.e. food, water, shelter, energy, etc. and how that our Labor invested upon existing Natural Resources afford these things to us and how that a system of honest money facilitates the equitable distribution of these needs. He authored The Case for Eco-Agriculture; economically and ecologically sound Agriculture. And he authored Unforgiven; a dissertation that demonstrates how America, historically and currently, has opted for military parity instead of agricultural parity and has thereby suffered the economic consequences of a wrong choice...
...although aged, he’s still around and so is his AcresUSA–if you want an entirely alternative view on the subject of economics and finance check out his school of thought at:
(you’ll have to search around a bit in the archives for his economic views but it’s well worth the time).
From the point of view of an economic and financial simpleton; I don’t need Gold or Silver; I need food, water, shelter, energy and honest money that compensates me for my investment of Labor fairly, i.e. at parity...
Article I, Section 10, Clause 1: "No State shall…coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debt."
To me, this is saying that only "gold and silver coin" would be accepted by the Federal Government as "a Tender in Payment of Debt." It does not infer that the Constitutional obligation of the Congress to issue currency and determine the value thereof has to be restricted exclusively to "gold and silver" so that the value of other "commodities" could not be considered in determining the value of our currency–"a Tender in Payment of Debt" restricts the means whereby a Debt may be repaid, supposedly by the individual States to the Federal government–there is no implication herein that the production of Physical Wealth and the issuance of a currency in order to Monetize it in order to facilitate its distribution in Trade has to be restricted solely to a precious metals standard–the production of Physical Wealth is not Debt, it is Profit.
...but then, that’s just an economic simpleton’s opinion...
Thanks for the thought provoking article and the discussion that follows. I particularly liked the egg analogy.
I wonder if any of the many states have tried to fight the Fed using Article I, Section 10, Clause 1: "No State shall…coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debt."
Because we have FRNs instead of gold and silver based currency, the many states cannot comply with this Clause of the Constitution.
It would be interesting to see how the Supreme Court could manipulate this very obvious rule of law.
The many states should stop doing business with the Federal government until they are given a way to Constitutionally do so. i.e. a gold or silver based currency.
Perhaps we, the citizens of the many states, could sue our respective states to force them to obey this Clause.
"From the point of view of an economic and financial simpleton; I don’t need Gold or Silver; I need food, water, shelter, energy and honest money that compensates me for my investment of Labor fairly, i.e. at parity...
Article I, Section 10, Clause 1: "No State shall…coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debt."
To me, this is saying that only "gold and silver coin" would be accepted by the Federal Government as "a Tender in Payment of Debt." It does not infer that the Constitutional obligation of the Congress to issue currency and determine the value thereof has to be restricted exclusively to "gold and silver" so that the value of other "commodities" could not be considered in determining the value of our currency–"a Tender in Payment of Debt" restricts the means whereby a Debt may be repaid, supposedly by the individual States to the Federal government–there is no implication herein that the production of Physical Wealth and the issuance of a currency in order to Monetize it in order to facilitate its distribution in Trade has to be restricted solely to a precious metals standard–the production of Physical Wealth is not Debt, it is Profit."
I think where you're misunderstanding the value of gold and silver is how they are utilized as a medium of exchange because they are durable....AND....have history of them maintaining value. Even fiat dollars aren't durable and have to be replaced every so often.
Obviously agriculture is not durable. It has a shelf life. It sure can be used, among the locals say, as a medium of exchange and/or "honest money" if the two parties agree to the exchange. I personally have no problem with that. But that type of exchange can only work with small amounts in the exchange, say between farmer A and farmer B who wanted each others agriculture product.
If taken further, is the farmer to then go and pay for his medical bills with his product? for school items for his kids? to the post office for a stamp? etc. etc.? with his ears of corn? There of course is also the risk that the received ag product would go bad quickly and leave the person at the other end of the exchange with nothing.
Having a medium of exchange would alleviate these types of issues whereby the buyer and seller can each use the medium to purchase other items they desire.
This medium of exchange has to have the characteristics of being durable as well as a history of maintaining value. As Ron Paul says, only gold and silver fit this description.
While your ideas about agriculture are, in my book, good ones, and ones that our family practices (we own farmland and will never sell it), and fulfills the basic human needs of nourishment, it can only take one so far in exchanging those items for even the means (tractors, combines, fertilizer, etc.) to produce the agriculture they want to.
To put it another way, outside of precious metals, what else beside paper can be used as this medium of exchange that has these characteristics? The reason the Founders wanted Congress to use "nothing but silver or gold" is simply because they knew the consequences if they didn't. There are many quotes from the Founding Fathers on this issue.
And personally I don't speak for Ron Paul (Jake) if that's what you were assuming. I am careful in choosing the words I use and I only reference his written words. I have been researching him since before the U.S. even knew he was alive and I've met him personally twice.
Again, thanks for the informative discussion. Since I did not clarify with specific enough wording (my fault), let me explain further that I agree with you that society needs a medium of exchange–my intent is that it be maintained as honest money. I don’t mind a precious metals standard but historically, even during the past when actual gold and silver coinage was in circulation, their value was still able to be manipulated unfairly to the advantage of some (usually the few) and the disadvantage of others (usually the many). And there were cycles of recession, depression and even economic collapses.
A return to a precious metals standard is necessary but along with this so is the realization that it too can be manipulated and that the gold and silver is not the thing of value; it is those less durable, even perishable things that we need in our day by day existence that the gold and silver should honestly represent that are the things of true value. As with the fiat piece of paper so with the precious metals, “ Is a dozen eggs worth a gold dollar or is a gold dollar worth a dozen eggs?” And our Labor should likewise be honestly represented as a thing of value in this equation. The return to a precious metals standard is necessary but it is not necessarily a panacea that would fix all of our economic problems and it would only be the first correct step in a long journey thereafter.
I’m not saying these things because I think that you are not aware of them and need to be informed of them; I know you are already aware and informed–I am merely trying to define my position to you more clearly. And I am very appreciative of you and all of the others out there that realize a change is desperately needed (and that change wasn’t Obama–I shouldn’t say that yet; he hasn’t had his chance yet–but I won’t be holding my breath waiting for it either).
I would, beyond the shadow of a doubt, support the return to a precious metals standard medium of exchange but along with this I would also be saying, “Hey now! There are additional things to consider along with this. We need put in place mechanisms (I suppose this is saying “rules” which unfortunately by its very nature also requires a degree of oversight and regulation) that prevent manipulations. We also need to realize and make provision for the value of those less durable and even perishable forms of Wealth that this medium of exchange represents. We need to factor in the reality that this medium of exchange is the claim of the Laborer to the True Wealth that this medium of exchange represents and which the Laborer has earned by investing or selling his Labor in exchange for it. And considering these things we need to keep it all fair and honest so that the medium of exchange is maintained as honest money.
Of course there are innumerable other factors, considerations and complications. Supply and demand factors; abundance and scarcity issues; technological progress and improvements of efficiency so that continual adjustments and modifications and flexibility would be ever ongoing and would require an ongoing vigilance of administration--we just have to work at it as it goes along in order to keep it fair and honest money.
And along with all of this we would have to admit that no matter how hard we tried in establishing a better working system and no matter how seamless it was made, the unscrupulous would still figure ways around it...
Good points. If we could get the individual States unaddicted to Federal funds they could no doubt exercise some formidable Constitutional muscle. Within the current scenario of the economic crisis/noncrisis they being weaned off of them anyway simple because of unavailability...
...in the individual States need to realize that they have at their own disposal Natural Resources that they should use within their own border to provide for the needs of their own citizens...
I would like to offer a solution to "the unscrupulous would still figure ways around it," as this seems to be the problem with any solution you, me, Jake, Walt, Ron Paul, Fekete, The Austrians, etc., might come up with.
This can be found in section 19 of the 1792 Coinage Act:
"Sec. 19. 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."
From a Christian point of view I'm sure you'll agree that we could change the verbiage from "death" to maybe "life in prison."
The point being, these so called highly educated individuals who run our country have to consciously realize they would suffer a severe penalty if found to be debasing the gold and silver currency.
To address your question; "Is a dozen eggs worth a gold dollar or is a gold dollar worth a dozen eggs?” IMO, the mistake is in using the word "dollar."
Referencing my good friend Doug Gnazzo, author of the book, "Honest Money," a dollar is defined as;
"371.25 grains of pure silver - commonly known as a Silver Dollar."
"Furthermore, the dollar was stated to be the unit of account of the United States, according to the above definition as a specific weight of silver, commonly referred to as the silver dollar, i.e. 371.25 grains of pure silver."
"The standard of our monetary system is silver, and the circulating currency is stated to be silver and gold coin." Article 1 Sec. 10 Clause 1
"Silver and Gold are the standard by which prices should be set, according to weight and fractions thereof."
The dollar of the constitution is not a "dollar bill." It is "371.25 grains of pure silver."
For more on "What is a Dollar," go here: http://www.independentamerican.org/2008/08/03/what-is-a-dollar/
Lastly, we haven't even touched on the evil known as fractional reserve banking! But maybe another time..
Not to re-open further discussion or to denigrate any prior worthy commentary--but the jist of it all is that the "dozen eggs," the loaf of bread, the cut of beef, the can of green beans, the roof over our head; is the thing of real value, albeit it perishable, to our daily lives and not the fiat currency, gold or silver that represent it...
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
