<< <i>Our government has no interest in your gold or your weapons designed for hunting or personal protection. >>
Hunting or personal protection have nothing to do with it.
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..."
Everything is on loan, especially gold. That's why the government will reclaim it. They'll have orders from higher up to start paving the streets with it. I had a dream that I saw a Saint Gaudens Twenty Dollar Double Eagle in the sidewalk I was strolling along. I didn't bother picking it up as it was part of the ecosystem. I remember it was graded MS 70 by PCGS, except there wasn't any plastic around it.
<< <i>If the government really decided to take you out - even with all your body armor , 30-100 round magazines, and "assault" style weapons-how long do you really think you would last against a Seal or Ranger team ? A drone with a hellfire missile would be pretty nasty, you should probably also invest in some home/auto armor system, radar and surface to air missiles. Our government has no interest in your gold or your weapons designed for hunting or personal protection. If you can't take out a deer or a bad guy with ten rounds you need to spend more time at the range . >>
LOL
Mark NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!! working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
<< <i>Just in case the US government decides to confiscate gold here is how I protect myself!
Buy real collectible gold coins! I feel very comfortable that I can convince the gubermint that these collectible coins will be exempt from any future confiscation.
>>
I think you are wise. These are difficult to trace.
<< <i> Yes, Frank. The government had a good reason to take everyone's gold in 1933 just as the government had a good reason to kill and steal land from the Indians and to put American citizens of Japanese ancestry in concentration camps during WWII. If the government wants to steal our gold I'm sure they'll have no problem coming up with good reasons. >>
The government didn't "take everyone's gold" -- it was exchanged for other forms of money. The executive order (approved by Congress) prohibited HOARDING of gold. Coins held in collections were exempt, as was $100 face in gold coins per person...5 oz, that was not a trivial amount of buying power. A family of 5 could hold 25 oz, some $42,000 in today's buying power. Plus all the jewelry you could afford. A number of banks, investment syndicates and individuals realized that holding huge amounts of gold during a depression was very profitable. As prices of everything tumbled, the relative value of gold increased, thus making the holders grip even tighter, and causing prices to fall even more. Just like when the financial markets locked up in Sept 2008.
It's an OLD battle between the gold standard Republicans and the free silver Democrats that can be seen in our coinage history. When the coinage of silver dollars was ended in 1873 by hard money gold standard advocates, forcing all transactions to be paid in gold through New York banks (previously the mints would make silver dollars out of newly mined western silver) the world was plunged into -- what was called at the time -- the "Great Depression" The depression ended in 1879, a year after 2,000,000 newly made Morgan dollars a month entered commerce. After 15 prosperous years the gold standard advocates got the Bland-Allison and Sherman Silver acts repealed in 1893. Coinage of dollars slowed to a trickle as collectors trying to find 1893 to 1895 Morgans know! Again, the country was plunged into a depression..
Let's revisit William Jennings Bryan's 1896 "Cross of Gold" speech--
There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it.
You come to us and tell us that the great cities are in favor of the gold standard. I tell you that the great cities rest upon these broad and fertile prairies. Burn down your cities and leave our farms, and your cities will spring up again as if by magic. But destroy our farms and the grass will grow in the streets of every city in the country.
My friends, we shall declare that this nation is able to legislate for its own people on every question without waiting for the aid or consent of any other nation on earth, and upon that issue we expect to carry every single state in the Union.
I shall not slander the fair state of Massachusetts nor the state of New York by saying that when citizens are confronted with the proposition, “Is this nation able to attend to its own business?”—I will not slander either one by saying that the people of those states will declare our helpless impotency as a nation to attend to our own business. It is the issue of 1776 over again. Our ancestors, when but 3 million, had the courage to declare their political independence of every other nation upon earth. Shall we, their descendants, when we have grown to 70 million, declare that we are less independent than our forefathers? No, my friends, it will never be the judgment of this people. Therefore, we care not upon what lines the battle is fought. If they say bimetallism is good but we cannot have it till some nation helps us, we reply that, instead of having a gold standard because England has, we shall restore bimetallism, and then let England have bimetallism because the United States have.
If they dare to come out in the open field and defend the gold standard as a good thing, we shall fight them to the uttermost, having behind us the producing masses of the nation and the world. Having behind us the commercial interests and the laboring interests and all the toiling masses, we shall answer their demands for a gold standard by saying to them, you shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.
Frank Provasek - PCGS Authorized Dealer, Life Member ANA, Member TNA. www.frankcoins.com
Makes sense. Certainly they wouldn't take our clothes. Or would they?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i> Yes, Frank. The government had a good reason to take everyone's gold in 1933 just as the government had a good reason to kill and steal land from the Indians and to put American citizens of Japanese ancestry in concentration camps during WWII. If the government wants to steal our gold I'm sure they'll have no problem coming up with good reasons. >>
The government didn't "take everyone's gold" -- it was exchanged for other forms of money. >>
Yes. They took the gold and gave you paper that they would soon depreciate. Sounds like something a dictator would do in some third world country. They gave you no choice in the matter and threatened those that didn't comply with heavy fines and imprisonment.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Frank, the gov certainly did take our gold, and exchanged it for paper - paper whose only value was that people are compelled to accept it for the value written on its face.
Thank God William Jennings Bryon was thrice a loser in his bids for president. In that speech you quote, he sounds like a total douche.
If the government really decided to take you out - even with all your body armor , 30-100 round magazines, and "assault" style weapons-how long do you really think you would last against a Seal or Ranger team ? A drone with a hellfire missile would be pretty nasty, you should probably also invest in some home/auto armor system, radar and surface to air missiles.
Sounds like a typical government budget overspending item, in response to another imagined/synthetic crisis, using our own money to attack us, only with real weapons instead of the usual financial theft and misappropriation of funds.
Our government has no interest in your gold or your weapons designed for hunting or personal protection. If you can't take out a deer or a bad guy with ten rounds you need to spend more time at the range .
Point A - re, no interest in your gold: Nope, just like they have no interest in riding high on your tax money. You can't run two opposing scams at the same time. Check again what the government does with gold when the dollar is having its final hurrah as the debt bubble "pops".
Point B - re, weapons designed for hunting or personal protection. My thought is that US citizens should have at least as much capability to defend themselves as the level of firepower that the government provides to Mexican drug cartels. This would supercede the "hunting and personal protection" idea.
And you really trust these guys? Be my guest.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
The actual history behind the 1933 order is what we should concentrate on. Frank is giving us a quick taste of the "situation on the ground" at the time -- there is much more that can be researched.
What I have found most interesting in my research of history is how often the imposition of a gold standard has resulted in a recession or depression for the U.S. economy. While it can be argued that rampant inflation and massive government debt will eventually collapse, history has proven that austerity measures during slow economic times makes the situation worse, not better.
You may be overlooking the fact that a permanent transfer of wealth is taking place because of the low interest rate policies in that real estate is eventually ending up being owned by the banks, instead of by people who paid into the mortgages, and that banking debt is being forgiven while personal debt is not. This inappropriate transfer of ownership and inappropriate debt placement upon working people would be harder to accomplish without the banks having complete control over money creation and interest rates. Having a fixed level of money supply, based on a finite resource such as gold simply forces honest accounting into place.
Fiat money creation by the Fed and fractional reserve money creation, or financial instrument derivative creation by the banks gives the false effect of a seeming recovery that isn't effective in producing more output other than higher accounting profits, (which incidently are taxable) even though the actual output may not be higher. The higher debt requires more money creation to service the debt, and the low interest rate policy does nothing except cause hardship to savers and retirees who have nowhere to go for current income.
Besides all of that, the debt is unsustainable as the percentage of debt increases in comparison to the GDP. We are reaching those levels where the money can't be created fast enough to service the interest on the debt. That is exactly why more money is being injected into the banking system via Treasuries in order to keep the interest rates down artificially. Pretty soon, even that won't work. The debt bubble/Treasury Bond bubble is mother of all Ponzi schemes in terms of scale.
Policy-wise, all this extra debt and money creation simply serves to direct money into pet projects and this results in misallocations of capital because many of these pet projects are only based on political favors and can't economically survive on their own. In other words, they are wasteful in more ways than one.
My concern in all this is that we will probably be the ones who experience the situation on the ground who finally do get to experience the type of depression that Frank is talking about, so we actually will be able to compare it to those depressions that you think were caused by the gold standard.
I agree with William Jennings Byran's idea of a bimetallic system, but he had it wrong thinking that a level of financial discipline (forced upon the banks by a gold standard) would be a bad thing. I think that the banks are basically unregulated right now and if anything, they should exist much lower on the totem pole of financial operatives in this country than they are currently - as field service offices only and not as profit centers.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
<< <i>The government didn't "take everyone's gold" -- it was exchanged for other forms of money. >>
Yes. They took the gold and gave you paper that they would soon depreciate. Sounds like something a dictator would do in some third world country. They gave you no choice in the matter and threatened those that didn't comply with heavy fines and imprisonment. >>
and I think it's absurd to think that FDR was channeling William Jennings Bryan.
<< <i> Yes, Frank. The government had a good reason to take everyone's gold in 1933 just as the government had a good reason to kill and steal land from the Indians and to put American citizens of Japanese ancestry in concentration camps during WWII. If the government wants to steal our gold I'm sure they'll have no problem coming up with good reasons. >>
The government didn't "take everyone's gold" -- it was exchanged for other forms of money. >>
Yes. They took the gold and gave you paper that they would soon depreciate. Sounds like something a dictator would do in some third world country. They gave you no choice in the matter and threatened those that didn't comply with heavy fines and imprisonment. >>
In a dictatorship they just take things with no recompense. The problem most people have with history is putting it in context, FDR was dealing with an economy that was in tatters, there were times during the Depression when the very real question was whether or not our system would survive. What would you have done if you had been sitting in the Oval Office???
<< <i>Frank, the gov certainly did take our gold, and exchanged it for paper - paper whose only value was that people are compelled to accept it for the value written on its face.
Thank God William Jennings Bryon was thrice a loser in his bids for president. In that speech you quote, he sounds like a total douche. >>
William Jennings Bryan didn't know anything about economics, and by the time he was running from president in 1896 and 1900 his brain pan was too shallow to analyze the issues. He even admitted at one point that he had not thought though the free silver issue, but he would "worry about that later." Bryan was a windbag and a religious zealot who had fantastic abilities as a public speaker. On a personal basis Bryan was also a very nice man from what I've read. He just wasn't presidential material. He wowed his followers and scared his detractors.
As time wore on his message appealed to fewer and fewer people. In 1908 he polled fewer popular votes than he got in 1896 despite a significant increase in the population. After the 1908 election he compared himself to a drunk who had been kicked out a bar. His message did not resonate with the people any more.
In 1912 Bryan used his influence within the party to win the Democratic presidential nomination for Woodrow Wilson. In return Wilson appointed Bryan secretary of state. In that office Bryan applied his moralistic attitudes toward his post, which did not work well. In 1915 he resigned in protest over Wilson's "pro British" policy after the sinking of the Lusitania. Many historians view William Jennings Bryan's tenure as secretary of state as a failure.
As for the Panics of 1873 and 1893, they were not caused by the gold standard. In both instances major corporations (railroads and banks) had taken on too much debt, and when they failed, the economy went with them. (Does that sound familiar?) In 1893 the situation was made worse by the Sherman Silver Purchase Act which mandated government purchases of silver with paper many that could be redeemed in gold or silver. Those who received the notes redeemed them in gold which left the U.S. Government in the position of not having enough gold in its vaults to back its currency. At a time when the major countries of the world were on the Gold Standard, that was a serious situation.
As for Bryan's free silver policy, an argument could have certainly been made for an increase in the money supply to relieve the effects of the Panic of 1893. The problem was Bryan put no limits on the amount size of the increase in the money supply via the coinage of silver. Given the glut of silver that was then on the market, Bryan's free silver ideas would have resulted in massive inflation, and serious economic consequences for The United States.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
jmski52 and Bill Jones, even though we disagree on many of the specifics, thank you for your input. This is the type of dialog and intelligent debate that we sorely need in this country, at all levels, even a coin collector's message board.
I have to point out that maintaining a gold standard limits available currency to a finite level, keeping the Fed (or other financial units, such as the banks in the 1800's) from doing anything to alleviate a crisis. While the failure of businesses due to excessive debt may have initiated bank runs, panics, and so forth, the inability to pump additional funds into the economy and keep all other businesses running would exacerbate the situation.
Don't think William Jennings Bryan is my hero. Not even close. However, in the debate between a tight gold standard and a looser monetary system, some of his thoughts (and those of his followers) more closely follows my own.
Unlike some conservatives, I don't quarrel with the fact that the Federal Reserve exists. Over the years it has done for more good than harm. Those who think that it should be abolished should study the history of The United States in the 19th century when there was no government bank, not even The Bank of the United States in Andrew Jackson's time. It was marked by one economic panic after another.
I have differences with some of their policies both historically and at the present time. At the moment I think that the policy of buying government bonds to fund the national debt is a recipe for disaster. Time and time again inappropriate increases in the money supply may have bought some time for incompetent governments, but have eventually led to massive inflation and currency collapse.
There's were I think we are headed, and that's why you see such high prices for gold and silver. The current levels of government expenditures are unsustainable. It's an unpleasant message, but it's one that thoughtful citizens need to acknowledge.
Going back to the Gold Standard is antiquated and unworkable given the size of the world economy. But failing to heed the consequences of a short sighted monetary policy is not better
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
The way that Weimar Germany got out of their hyperinflationary scenario was to promise real estate and real assets as backing for the new currency. As we speak, the IMF is moving towards a different composition of the SDRs (or whatever their unit is) than what they now have - and that new composition is going to elevate gold into the top tier (Tier 1) of asset classes, mainly because it is an asset that has no counterparty risk.
I don't know if there is a perfect answer to a stable currency, but I do feel that an arbitrary standard applied to everyone else by a few elite bankers who don't work in the real world and have a disturbing tendency to siphon money off the top - is not a good compromise, since their judgement always seems to favor a few elite bankers who don't work in the real world.
As far as preventing a monetary crisis due to the need to pump additional funds into the economy, what makes bankers more qualified as to the distribution of newly-created capital than say - a mechanic or a grocer who has to function on a real budget?
It actually would serve the private enterprise capitalistic model much better to hand the stimulus money over directly to every man, woman and child - and to let them allocate the money according to their own needs, if that's what really needs to be done for the sake of creating more liquidity in the system. There would be an inflationary impact, but at least people would have to bear some responsibility for their own follies and foibles, and I believe that the entire system of consumption and production would respond according to the need. (Of course, this does make a small leap in assuming that a trend toward more individual responsibility, rather than the trend toward less individual responsibility would become the norm and not the exception.)
People create benefits and goods from their own labor and there's really a very minimal purpose in having the extra burden of a large and inefficient bureaucracy, that positions itself between the creators and consumers in a marketplace. Like I said, I think that the Fed should be further down the food chain and that banks should be more like convenience centers than profit centers.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
<< <i> Yes, Frank. The government had a good reason to take everyone's gold in 1933 just as the government had a good reason to kill and steal land from the Indians and to put American citizens of Japanese ancestry in concentration camps during WWII. If the government wants to steal our gold I'm sure they'll have no problem coming up with good reasons. >>
The government didn't "take everyone's gold" -- it was exchanged for other forms of money. The executive order (approved by Congress) prohibited HOARDING of gold. Coins held in collections were exempt, as was $100 face in gold coins per person...5 oz, that was not a trivial amount of buying power. A family of 5 could hold 25 oz, some $42,000 in today's buying power. Plus all the jewelry you could afford. A number of banks, investment syndicates and individuals realized that holding huge amounts of gold during a depression was very profitable. As prices of everything tumbled, the relative value of gold increased, thus making the holders grip even tighter, and causing prices to fall even more. Just like when the financial markets locked up in Sept 2008.
It's an OLD battle between the gold standard Republicans and the free silver Democrats that can be seen in our coinage history. When the coinage of silver dollars was ended in 1873 by hard money gold standard advocates, forcing all transactions to be paid in gold through New York banks (previously the mints would make silver dollars out of newly mined western silver) the world was plunged into -- what was called at the time -- the "Great Depression" The depression ended in 1879, a year after 2,000,000 newly made Morgan dollars a month entered commerce. After 15 prosperous years the gold standard advocates got the Bland-Allison and Sherman Silver acts repealed in 1893. Coinage of dollars slowed to a trickle as collectors trying to find 1893 to 1895 Morgans know! Again, the country was plunged into a depression..
Let's revisit William Jennings Bryan's 1896 "Cross of Gold" speech--
There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it.
You come to us and tell us that the great cities are in favor of the gold standard. I tell you that the great cities rest upon these broad and fertile prairies. Burn down your cities and leave our farms, and your cities will spring up again as if by magic. But destroy our farms and the grass will grow in the streets of every city in the country.
My friends, we shall declare that this nation is able to legislate for its own people on every question without waiting for the aid or consent of any other nation on earth, and upon that issue we expect to carry every single state in the Union.
I shall not slander the fair state of Massachusetts nor the state of New York by saying that when citizens are confronted with the proposition, “Is this nation able to attend to its own business?”—I will not slander either one by saying that the people of those states will declare our helpless impotency as a nation to attend to our own business. It is the issue of 1776 over again. Our ancestors, when but 3 million, had the courage to declare their political independence of every other nation upon earth. Shall we, their descendants, when we have grown to 70 million, declare that we are less independent than our forefathers? No, my friends, it will never be the judgment of this people. Therefore, we care not upon what lines the battle is fought. If they say bimetallism is good but we cannot have it till some nation helps us, we reply that, instead of having a gold standard because England has, we shall restore bimetallism, and then let England have bimetallism because the United States have.
If they dare to come out in the open field and defend the gold standard as a good thing, we shall fight them to the uttermost, having behind us the producing masses of the nation and the world. Having behind us the commercial interests and the laboring interests and all the toiling masses, we shall answer their demands for a gold standard by saying to them, you shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold. >>
A fella once called me ignorant and I took offense to it. I was so offended, that I thought I'd better look up the definition of the word before proceeding.
ig·no·rant /ˈignərənt/
Adjective
1.Lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated. 2.Lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular: "ignorant of astronomy".
For the matter I was being called ignorant over, I was definitly "ignorant". But I had to prove it to myself. Today, I don't take offense over the term and instead see it as a challenge to better understand the subject matter.
Frank, you can't battle ignorance with education as some folks "bask" in their ignorance and will defend it to the death. As such, until a spark of curiosity toward actually learning about something is started, the ignorant will always be ignorant and instead choose to "believe" what they "feel" that they know. Right or wrong, they feel comfortable with their positions.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
<< <i>I have to point out that maintaining a gold standard limits available currency to a finite level, keeping the Fed (or other financial units, such as the banks in the 1800's) from doing anything to alleviate a crisis. >>
... or create one
A strict gold standard does have its negatives, but the more the government can do to "help" the more it can do to hurt (unintentionally or otherwise). It cuts both ways.
<< <i>A fella once called me ignorant and I took offense to it. I was so offended, that I thought I'd better look up the definition of the word before proceeding.
ig·no·rant /ˈignərənt/
Adjective
1.Lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated. 2.Lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular: "ignorant of astronomy".
For the matter I was being called ignorant over, I was definitly "ignorant". But I had to prove it to myself. Today, I don't take offense over the term and instead see it as a challenge to better understand the subject matter.
Frank, you can't battle ignorance with education as some folks "bask" in their ignorance and will defend it to the death. As such, until a spark of curiosity toward actually learning about something is started, the ignorant will always be ignorant and instead choose to "believe" what they "feel" that they know. Right or wrong, they feel comfortable with their positions. >>
Let me get this straight....if one disagrees with Frank's position that person is ignorant, uneducated, unsophisticated, lacking knowledge, etc. Ergo, I am basking in my ignorance?
Wow! That's very presumptuous, pompous, not to mention elitist point-of-view you have there. Nice going, champ!
<< <i>A fella once called me ignorant and I took offense to it. I was so offended, that I thought I'd better look up the definition of the word before proceeding.
ig·no·rant /ˈignərənt/
Adjective
1.Lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated. 2.Lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular: "ignorant of astronomy".
For the matter I was being called ignorant over, I was definitly "ignorant". But I had to prove it to myself. Today, I don't take offense over the term and instead see it as a challenge to better understand the subject matter.
Frank, you can't battle ignorance with education as some folks "bask" in their ignorance and will defend it to the death. As such, until a spark of curiosity toward actually learning about something is started, the ignorant will always be ignorant and instead choose to "believe" what they "feel" that they know. Right or wrong, they feel comfortable with their positions. >>
Let me get this straight....if one disagrees with Frank's position that person is ignorant, uneducated, unsophisticated, lacking knowledge, etc. Ergo, I am basking in my ignorance?
Wow! That's very presumptuous, pompous, not to mention elitist point-of-view you have there. Nice going, champ! >>
Give him a break. He admitted that he was ignorant.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>In a dictatorship they just take things with no recompense. >>
You might ask the Americans of Japanese descent who were involuntarily sent to "relocation camps" during WWII what their thoughts are on that claim. >>
Again, you have to understand the mood of the period. Certainly nothing we should be proud of, but maybe it will keep it from happening again. And although it was a case of too little too late, the Nisei were ultimately compensated.
<< <i> Yes, Frank. The government had a good reason to take everyone's gold in 1933 just as the government had a good reason to kill and steal land from the Indians and to put American citizens of Japanese ancestry in concentration camps during WWII. If the government wants to steal our gold I'm sure they'll have no problem coming up with good reasons. >>
The government didn't "take everyone's gold" -- it was exchanged for other forms of money. The executive order (approved by Congress) prohibited HOARDING of gold. Coins held in collections were exempt, as was $100 face in gold coins per person...5 oz, that was not a trivial amount of buying power. A family of 5 could hold 25 oz, some $42,000 in today's buying power. Plus all the jewelry you could afford. A number of banks, investment syndicates and individuals realized that holding huge amounts of gold during a depression was very profitable. As prices of everything tumbled, the relative value of gold increased, thus making the holders grip even tighter, and causing prices to fall even more. Just like when the financial markets locked up in Sept 2008.
It's an OLD battle between the gold standard Republicans and the free silver Democrats that can be seen in our coinage history. When the coinage of silver dollars was ended in 1873 by hard money gold standard advocates, forcing all transactions to be paid in gold through New York banks (previously the mints would make silver dollars out of newly mined western silver) the world was plunged into -- what was called at the time -- the "Great Depression" The depression ended in 1879, a year after 2,000,000 newly made Morgan dollars a month entered commerce. After 15 prosperous years the gold standard advocates got the Bland-Allison and Sherman Silver acts repealed in 1893. Coinage of dollars slowed to a trickle as collectors trying to find 1893 to 1895 Morgans know! Again, the country was plunged into a depression..
Let's revisit William Jennings Bryan's 1896 "Cross of Gold" speech--
There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it.
You come to us and tell us that the great cities are in favor of the gold standard. I tell you that the great cities rest upon these broad and fertile prairies. Burn down your cities and leave our farms, and your cities will spring up again as if by magic. But destroy our farms and the grass will grow in the streets of every city in the country.
My friends, we shall declare that this nation is able to legislate for its own people on every question without waiting for the aid or consent of any other nation on earth, and upon that issue we expect to carry every single state in the Union.
I shall not slander the fair state of Massachusetts nor the state of New York by saying that when citizens are confronted with the proposition, “Is this nation able to attend to its own business?”—I will not slander either one by saying that the people of those states will declare our helpless impotency as a nation to attend to our own business. It is the issue of 1776 over again. Our ancestors, when but 3 million, had the courage to declare their political independence of every other nation upon earth. Shall we, their descendants, when we have grown to 70 million, declare that we are less independent than our forefathers? No, my friends, it will never be the judgment of this people. Therefore, we care not upon what lines the battle is fought. If they say bimetallism is good but we cannot have it till some nation helps us, we reply that, instead of having a gold standard because England has, we shall restore bimetallism, and then let England have bimetallism because the United States have.
If they dare to come out in the open field and defend the gold standard as a good thing, we shall fight them to the uttermost, having behind us the producing masses of the nation and the world. Having behind us the commercial interests and the laboring interests and all the toiling masses, we shall answer their demands for a gold standard by saying to them, you shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold. >>
A fella once called me ignorant and I took offense to it. I was so offended, that I thought I'd better look up the definition of the word before proceeding.
ig·no·rant /ˈignərənt/
Adjective
1.Lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated. 2.Lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular: "ignorant of astronomy".
For the matter I was being called ignorant over, I was definitly "ignorant". But I had to prove it to myself. Today, I don't take offense over the term and instead see it as a challenge to better understand the subject matter.
Frank, you can't battle ignorance with education as some folks "bask" in their ignorance and will defend it to the death. As such, until a spark of curiosity toward actually learning about something is started, the ignorant will always be ignorant and instead choose to "believe" what they "feel" that they know. Right or wrong, they feel comfortable with their positions. >>
The first goal of education should be to teach people how to think critically. it makes it almost impossible to think in such a manner.
<< <i>Again, you have to understand the mood of the period. >>
Locking up people who have been charged with no crime is an abomination and should never happen in a free country. There is no excuse for it. Not even "mood of the period".
<< <i>Certainly nothing we should be proud of, but maybe it will keep it from happening again. >>
You can hope that it's safe to count on the government to not react similarly in the future, I guess. Maybe you'll be lucky.
<< <i>And although it was a case of too little too late, the Nisei were ultimately compensated. >>
"And although it was a case of too little too late, some of the Nisei were ultimately somewhat compensated."
Fixed it for you.
How much would *you* consider necesary to compensate you for being forced from your home, losing nearly all of your possessions and being locked up for several years? Would you be satisfied with $20,000?
Maybe we can stay on this discussion and not rehash the political stuff? >>
How can it not be political when the topic involves the government taking your gold?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>A fella once called me ignorant and I took offense to it. I was so offended, that I thought I'd better look up the definition of the word before proceeding.
ig·no·rant /ˈignərənt/
Adjective
1.Lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated. 2.Lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular: "ignorant of astronomy".
For the matter I was being called ignorant over, I was definitly "ignorant". But I had to prove it to myself. Today, I don't take offense over the term and instead see it as a challenge to better understand the subject matter.
Frank, you can't battle ignorance with education as some folks "bask" in their ignorance and will defend it to the death. As such, until a spark of curiosity toward actually learning about something is started, the ignorant will always be ignorant and instead choose to "believe" what they "feel" that they know. Right or wrong, they feel comfortable with their positions. >>
Let me get this straight....if one disagrees with Frank's position that person is ignorant, uneducated, unsophisticated, lacking knowledge, etc. Ergo, I am basking in my ignorance?
Wow! That's very presumptuous, pompous, not to mention elitist point-of-view you have there. Nice going, champ! >>
I did not say that. What I said was that most people are ignorant regarding what occured in 1933 and refuse to educate themselves about what "really" happened and what was really needed.
Most people today, have absolute no idea what money "really" is. They do not know what the Federal Reserve Bank is or what part it plays in our and the Worlds economy. They instead use their own ignorance against themselves which compounds the situation.
Its the difference between intelligently looking at the problem and how to fix it vs joining the mob and simply destroying everything and then declaring it fixed.
A lot of people revel in their own ignorance and noithing can be done about that. It happens every day on HSN and coin Vault. It happens everyday on eBay. They don;t know what they are doing but they continue to do it. That, is ignorance (Lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular) when the ability to educate oneself is no further than the keyboard and a determination to figure out what is really happening.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
<< <i>A fella once called me ignorant and I took offense to it. I was so offended, that I thought I'd better look up the definition of the word before proceeding.
ig·no·rant /ˈignərənt/
Adjective
1.Lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated. 2.Lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular: "ignorant of astronomy".
For the matter I was being called ignorant over, I was definitly "ignorant". But I had to prove it to myself. Today, I don't take offense over the term and instead see it as a challenge to better understand the subject matter.
Frank, you can't battle ignorance with education as some folks "bask" in their ignorance and will defend it to the death. As such, until a spark of curiosity toward actually learning about something is started, the ignorant will always be ignorant and instead choose to "believe" what they "feel" that they know. Right or wrong, they feel comfortable with their positions. >>
Let me get this straight....if one disagrees with Frank's position that person is ignorant, uneducated, unsophisticated, lacking knowledge, etc. Ergo, I am basking in my ignorance?
Wow! That's very presumptuous, pompous, not to mention elitist point-of-view you have there. Nice going, champ! >>
Give him a break. He admitted that he was ignorant. >>
And I'm (n)ot afraid to admit it either. However, I do have the capability "learning" which seems to elude some folks.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
<< <i> Yes, Frank. The government had a good reason to take everyone's gold in 1933 just as the government had a good reason to kill and steal land from the Indians and to put American citizens of Japanese ancestry in concentration camps during WWII. If the government wants to steal our gold I'm sure they'll have no problem coming up with good reasons. >>
The government didn't "take everyone's gold" -- it was exchanged for other forms of money. The executive order (approved by Congress) prohibited HOARDING of gold. Coins held in collections were exempt, as was $100 face in gold coins per person...5 oz, that was not a trivial amount of buying power. A family of 5 could hold 25 oz, some $42,000 in today's buying power. Plus all the jewelry you could afford. A number of banks, investment syndicates and individuals realized that holding huge amounts of gold during a depression was very profitable. As prices of everything tumbled, the relative value of gold increased, thus making the holders grip even tighter, and causing prices to fall even more. Just like when the financial markets locked up in Sept 2008.
It's an OLD battle between the gold standard Republicans and the free silver Democrats that can be seen in our coinage history. When the coinage of silver dollars was ended in 1873 by hard money gold standard advocates, forcing all transactions to be paid in gold through New York banks (previously the mints would make silver dollars out of newly mined western silver) the world was plunged into -- what was called at the time -- the "Great Depression" The depression ended in 1879, a year after 2,000,000 newly made Morgan dollars a month entered commerce. After 15 prosperous years the gold standard advocates got the Bland-Allison and Sherman Silver acts repealed in 1893. Coinage of dollars slowed to a trickle as collectors trying to find 1893 to 1895 Morgans know! Again, the country was plunged into a depression..
Let's revisit William Jennings Bryan's 1896 "Cross of Gold" speech--
There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it.
You come to us and tell us that the great cities are in favor of the gold standard. I tell you that the great cities rest upon these broad and fertile prairies. Burn down your cities and leave our farms, and your cities will spring up again as if by magic. But destroy our farms and the grass will grow in the streets of every city in the country.
My friends, we shall declare that this nation is able to legislate for its own people on every question without waiting for the aid or consent of any other nation on earth, and upon that issue we expect to carry every single state in the Union.
I shall not slander the fair state of Massachusetts nor the state of New York by saying that when citizens are confronted with the proposition, “Is this nation able to attend to its own business?”—I will not slander either one by saying that the people of those states will declare our helpless impotency as a nation to attend to our own business. It is the issue of 1776 over again. Our ancestors, when but 3 million, had the courage to declare their political independence of every other nation upon earth. Shall we, their descendants, when we have grown to 70 million, declare that we are less independent than our forefathers? No, my friends, it will never be the judgment of this people. Therefore, we care not upon what lines the battle is fought. If they say bimetallism is good but we cannot have it till some nation helps us, we reply that, instead of having a gold standard because England has, we shall restore bimetallism, and then let England have bimetallism because the United States have.
If they dare to come out in the open field and defend the gold standard as a good thing, we shall fight them to the uttermost, having behind us the producing masses of the nation and the world. Having behind us the commercial interests and the laboring interests and all the toiling masses, we shall answer their demands for a gold standard by saying to them, you shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold. >>
A fella once called me ignorant and I took offense to it. I was so offended, that I thought I'd better look up the definition of the word before proceeding.
ig·no·rant /ˈignərənt/
Adjective
1.Lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated. 2.Lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular: "ignorant of astronomy".
For the matter I was being called ignorant over, I was definitly "ignorant". But I had to prove it to myself. Today, I don't take offense over the term and instead see it as a challenge to better understand the subject matter.
Frank, you can't battle ignorance with education as some folks "bask" in their ignorance and will defend it to the death. As such, until a spark of curiosity toward actually learning about something is started, the ignorant will always be ignorant and instead choose to "believe" what they "feel" that they know. Right or wrong, they feel comfortable with their positions. >>
The first goal of education should be to teach people how to think critically. it makes it almost impossible to think in such a manner. >>
I believe that this is where we, as a society, have failed our children and their children. We failed to teach them two things:
1. Communication 2. Abstract thinking
Everything is black and white in todays world but we certainly did not start out that way.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
Maybe we can stay on this discussion and not rehash the political stuff? >>
How can it not be political when the topic involves the government taking your gold? >>
for the sake of this hypothetical discussion, is the government taking my gold during an audit, or is there a shiny black boot stepping on my neck?
It is highly doubtful the government has been selling the public gold coins since 1986 (1982, really) and is then going to sieze them back.
the government will attempt to apprehend tax cheats, laundered criminal money, stolen gold, and gold used to fund terrorism,
long before it will try to take your coin collection from you that you have receipts for, and you have no other evidence of criminal past or suspicious behavior patterns
It looks pretty good in a type set or Capital Holder. It's okay around the neck. I gave it as a gift , once or twice. In bezel, in rings... people like small fractional gold in earrings, necklaces and bracelets. I've seen it kept in about every way.... People keep it right up until such time as they need "REAL MONEY". I mean "cash". That's what is needed to pay the bills. I like coins and wish more Americans could see the value of the NUMISMATICS and understand when and why there is a large premium to spot with graded gold , particularly "GEMS".
We could discuss coins , but I don't want to upset you fellas who are uberly polarized with politics here.
What I said was that most people are ignorant regarding what occured in 1933 and refuse to educate themselves about what "really" happened and what was really needed.
Most people today, have absolute no idea what money "really" is. They do not know what the Federal Reserve Bank is or what part it plays in our and the Worlds economy. They instead use their own ignorance against themselves which compounds the situation.
Its the difference between intelligently looking at the problem and how to fix it vs joining the mob and simply destroying everything and then declaring it fixed.
A lot of people revel in their own ignorance and noithing can be done about that.
The Gold Confiscation Order was only one of the things that FDR did, and whether or not he intended to actually confiscate private gold doesn't matter as much as the fact that he threw a wet blanket over gold and removed it from the public's hands as a vehicle for savings, commercial trade or for monetary exchange. The order was effective in placing full control of the monetary system in the hands of the Fed, and that was the intention.
At the same time, Congress passed the Glass-Steagall Act which kept commercial banking and securities banking separate from each other until the big banks and Robert Rubin managed to lobby it out of existance so that they could mutate into the TBTF entities that they are now.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Comments
Regards, Larry
<< <i>Our government has no interest in your gold or your weapons designed for hunting or personal protection. >>
Hunting or personal protection have nothing to do with it.
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..."
My neighbor has 40+ ounces in nuggets....sure is cool to look at but he won't sell them
to me
bob
<< <i>It's still okay to own it in it's raw form,,,,,,nuggets. >>
Everything's okay until it's not.
I had a dream that I saw a Saint Gaudens Twenty Dollar Double Eagle in the sidewalk I was strolling along. I didn't bother picking it up as it was part of the ecosystem. I remember it was graded MS 70 by PCGS, except there wasn't any plastic around it.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>If the government really decided to take you out - even with all your body armor , 30-100 round magazines, and "assault" style weapons-how long do you really think you would last against a Seal or Ranger team ? A drone with a hellfire missile would be pretty nasty, you should probably also invest in some home/auto armor system, radar and surface to air missiles.
Our government has no interest in your gold or your weapons designed for hunting or personal protection. If you can't take out a deer or a bad guy with ten rounds you need to spend more time at the range . >>
LOL
NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!!
working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
RIP "BEAR"
<< <i>Just in case the US government decides to confiscate gold here is how I protect myself!
Buy real collectible gold coins! I feel very comfortable that I can convince the gubermint that these collectible coins will be exempt from any future confiscation.
>>
I think you are wise. These are difficult to trace.
<< <i>
Yes, Frank. The government had a good reason to take everyone's gold in 1933 just as the government had a good reason to kill and steal land from the Indians and to put American citizens of Japanese ancestry in concentration camps during WWII. If the government wants to steal our gold I'm sure they'll have no problem coming up with good reasons. >>
The government didn't "take everyone's gold" -- it was exchanged for other forms of money. The executive order (approved by Congress) prohibited HOARDING of gold. Coins held in collections were exempt, as was $100 face in gold coins per person...5 oz, that was not a trivial amount of buying power. A family of 5 could hold 25 oz, some $42,000 in today's buying power. Plus all the jewelry you could afford. A number of banks, investment syndicates and individuals realized that holding huge amounts of gold during a depression was very profitable. As prices of everything tumbled, the relative value of gold increased, thus making the holders grip even tighter, and causing prices to fall even more. Just like when the financial markets
locked up in Sept 2008.
It's an OLD battle between the gold standard Republicans and the free silver Democrats that can be seen in our coinage history. When the coinage of silver dollars was ended in 1873 by hard money gold standard advocates, forcing all transactions to be paid in gold through New York banks (previously the mints would make silver dollars out of newly mined western silver) the world was plunged into -- what was called at the time -- the "Great Depression" The depression ended in 1879, a year after 2,000,000 newly made Morgan dollars a month entered commerce. After 15 prosperous years the gold standard advocates got the Bland-Allison and Sherman Silver acts repealed in 1893. Coinage of dollars slowed to a trickle as collectors trying to find 1893 to 1895 Morgans know! Again, the country was plunged into a depression..
Let's revisit William Jennings Bryan's 1896 "Cross of Gold" speech--
There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it.
You come to us and tell us that the great cities are in favor of the gold standard. I tell you that the great cities rest upon these broad and fertile prairies. Burn down your cities and leave our farms, and your cities will spring up again as if by magic. But destroy our farms and the grass will grow in the streets of every city in the country.
My friends, we shall declare that this nation is able to legislate for its own people on every question without waiting for the aid or consent of any other nation on earth, and upon that issue we expect to carry every single state in the Union.
I shall not slander the fair state of Massachusetts nor the state of New York by saying that when citizens are confronted with the proposition, “Is this nation able to attend to its own business?”—I will not slander either one by saying that the people of those states will declare our helpless impotency as a nation to attend to our own business. It is the issue of 1776 over again. Our ancestors, when but 3 million, had the courage to declare their political independence of every other nation upon earth. Shall we, their descendants, when we have grown to 70 million, declare that we are less independent than our forefathers? No, my friends, it will never be the judgment of this people. Therefore, we care not upon what lines the battle is fought. If they say bimetallism is good but we cannot have it till some nation helps us, we reply that, instead of having a gold standard because England has, we shall restore bimetallism, and then let England have bimetallism because the United States have.
If they dare to come out in the open field and defend the gold standard as a good thing, we shall fight them to the uttermost, having behind us the producing masses of the nation and the world. Having behind us the commercial interests and the laboring interests and all the toiling masses, we shall answer their demands for a gold standard by saying to them, you shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.
<-----
<< <i>Wear it on a hat.
<----- >>
Makes sense. Certainly they wouldn't take our clothes. Or would they?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>
<< <i>
Yes, Frank. The government had a good reason to take everyone's gold in 1933 just as the government had a good reason to kill and steal land from the Indians and to put American citizens of Japanese ancestry in concentration camps during WWII. If the government wants to steal our gold I'm sure they'll have no problem coming up with good reasons. >>
The government didn't "take everyone's gold" -- it was exchanged for other forms of money. >>
Yes. They took the gold and gave you paper that they would soon depreciate. Sounds like something a dictator would do in some third world country. They gave you no choice in the matter and threatened those that didn't comply with heavy fines and imprisonment.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Thank God William Jennings Bryon was thrice a loser in his bids for president. In that speech you quote, he sounds like a total douche.
Sounds like a typical government budget overspending item, in response to another imagined/synthetic crisis, using our own money to attack us, only with real weapons instead of the usual financial theft and misappropriation of funds.
Our government has no interest in your gold or your weapons designed for hunting or personal protection. If you can't take out a deer or a bad guy with ten rounds you need to spend more time at the range .
Point A - re, no interest in your gold: Nope, just like they have no interest in riding high on your tax money. You can't run two opposing scams at the same time. Check again what the government does with gold when the dollar is having its final hurrah as the debt bubble "pops".
Point B - re, weapons designed for hunting or personal protection. My thought is that US citizens should have at least as much capability to defend themselves as the level of firepower that the government provides to Mexican drug cartels. This would supercede the "hunting and personal protection" idea.
And you really trust these guys? Be my guest.
I knew it would happen.
"situation on the ground" at the time -- there is much more that can be researched.
What I have found most interesting in my research of history is how often the imposition of a gold standard has resulted
in a recession or depression for the U.S. economy. While it can be argued that rampant inflation and massive government
debt will eventually collapse, history has proven that austerity measures during slow economic times makes the situation
worse, not better.
You may be overlooking the fact that a permanent transfer of wealth is taking place because of the low interest rate policies in that real estate is eventually ending up being owned by the banks, instead of by people who paid into the mortgages, and that banking debt is being forgiven while personal debt is not. This inappropriate transfer of ownership and inappropriate debt placement upon working people would be harder to accomplish without the banks having complete control over money creation and interest rates. Having a fixed level of money supply, based on a finite resource such as gold simply forces honest accounting into place.
Fiat money creation by the Fed and fractional reserve money creation, or financial instrument derivative creation by the banks gives the false effect of a seeming recovery that isn't effective in producing more output other than higher accounting profits, (which incidently are taxable) even though the actual output may not be higher. The higher debt requires more money creation to service the debt, and the low interest rate policy does nothing except cause hardship to savers and retirees who have nowhere to go for current income.
Besides all of that, the debt is unsustainable as the percentage of debt increases in comparison to the GDP. We are reaching those levels where the money can't be created fast enough to service the interest on the debt. That is exactly why more money is being injected into the banking system via Treasuries in order to keep the interest rates down artificially. Pretty soon, even that won't work. The debt bubble/Treasury Bond bubble is mother of all Ponzi schemes in terms of scale.
Policy-wise, all this extra debt and money creation simply serves to direct money into pet projects and this results in misallocations of capital because many of these pet projects are only based on political favors and can't economically survive on their own. In other words, they are wasteful in more ways than one.
My concern in all this is that we will probably be the ones who experience the situation on the ground who finally do get to experience the type of depression that Frank is talking about, so we actually will be able to compare it to those depressions that you think were caused by the gold standard.
I agree with William Jennings Byran's idea of a bimetallic system, but he had it wrong thinking that a level of financial discipline (forced upon the banks by a gold standard) would be a bad thing. I think that the banks are basically unregulated right now and if anything, they should exist much lower on the totem pole of financial operatives in this country than they are currently - as field service offices only and not as profit centers.
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>
<< <i>The government didn't "take everyone's gold" -- it was exchanged for other forms of money. >>
Yes. They took the gold and gave you paper that they would soon depreciate. Sounds like something a dictator would do in some third world country. They gave you no choice in the matter and threatened those that didn't comply with heavy fines and imprisonment. >>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
Yes, Frank. The government had a good reason to take everyone's gold in 1933 just as the government had a good reason to kill and steal land from the Indians and to put American citizens of Japanese ancestry in concentration camps during WWII. If the government wants to steal our gold I'm sure they'll have no problem coming up with good reasons. >>
The government didn't "take everyone's gold" -- it was exchanged for other forms of money. >>
Yes. They took the gold and gave you paper that they would soon depreciate. Sounds like something a dictator would do in some third world country. They gave you no choice in the matter and threatened those that didn't comply with heavy fines and imprisonment. >>
In a dictatorship they just take things with no recompense. The problem most people have with history is putting it in context, FDR was dealing with an economy that was in tatters, there were times during the Depression when the very real question was whether or not our system would survive. What would you have done if you had been sitting in the Oval Office???
<< <i>Frank, the gov certainly did take our gold, and exchanged it for paper - paper whose only value was that people are compelled to accept it for the value written on its face.
Thank God William Jennings Bryon was thrice a loser in his bids for president. In that speech you quote, he sounds like a total douche. >>
William Jennings Bryan didn't know anything about economics, and by the time he was running from president in 1896 and 1900 his brain pan was too shallow to analyze the issues. He even admitted at one point that he had not thought though the free silver issue, but he would "worry about that later." Bryan was a windbag and a religious zealot who had fantastic abilities as a public speaker. On a personal basis Bryan was also a very nice man from what I've read. He just wasn't presidential material. He wowed his followers and scared his detractors.
As time wore on his message appealed to fewer and fewer people. In 1908 he polled fewer popular votes than he got in 1896 despite a significant increase in the population. After the 1908 election he compared himself to a drunk who had been kicked out a bar. His message did not resonate with the people any more.
In 1912 Bryan used his influence within the party to win the Democratic presidential nomination for Woodrow Wilson. In return Wilson appointed Bryan secretary of state. In that office Bryan applied his moralistic attitudes toward his post, which did not work well. In 1915 he resigned in protest over Wilson's "pro British" policy after the sinking of the Lusitania. Many historians view William Jennings Bryan's tenure as secretary of state as a failure.
As for the Panics of 1873 and 1893, they were not caused by the gold standard. In both instances major corporations (railroads and banks) had taken on too much debt, and when they failed, the economy went with them. (Does that sound familiar?) In 1893 the situation was made worse by the Sherman Silver Purchase Act which mandated government purchases of silver with paper many that could be redeemed in gold or silver. Those who received the notes redeemed them in gold which left the U.S. Government in the position of not having enough gold in its vaults to back its currency. At a time when the major countries of the world were on the Gold Standard, that was a serious situation.
As for Bryan's free silver policy, an argument could have certainly been made for an increase in the money supply to relieve the effects of the Panic of 1893. The problem was Bryan put no limits on the amount size of the increase in the money supply via the coinage of silver. Given the glut of silver that was then on the market, Bryan's free silver ideas would have resulted in massive inflation, and serious economic consequences for The United States.
of dialog and intelligent debate that we sorely need in this country, at all levels, even a coin collector's message board.
I have to point out that maintaining a gold standard limits available currency to a finite level, keeping the Fed (or other
financial units, such as the banks in the 1800's) from doing anything to alleviate a crisis. While the failure of businesses
due to excessive debt may have initiated bank runs, panics, and so forth, the inability to pump additional funds into the
economy and keep all other businesses running would exacerbate the situation.
Don't think William Jennings Bryan is my hero. Not even close. However, in the debate between a tight gold standard
and a looser monetary system, some of his thoughts (and those of his followers) more closely follows my own.
<< <i>In a dictatorship they just take things with no recompense. >>
You might ask the Americans of Japanese descent who were involuntarily sent to "relocation camps" during WWII what their thoughts are on that claim.
I have differences with some of their policies both historically and at the present time. At the moment I think that the policy of buying government bonds to fund the national debt is a recipe for disaster. Time and time again inappropriate increases in the money supply may have bought some time for incompetent governments, but have eventually led to massive inflation and currency collapse.
There's were I think we are headed, and that's why you see such high prices for gold and silver. The current levels of government expenditures are unsustainable. It's an unpleasant message, but it's one that thoughtful citizens need to acknowledge.
Going back to the Gold Standard is antiquated and unworkable given the size of the world economy. But failing to heed the consequences of a short sighted monetary policy is not better
I don't know if there is a perfect answer to a stable currency, but I do feel that an arbitrary standard applied to everyone else by a few elite bankers who don't work in the real world and have a disturbing tendency to siphon money off the top - is not a good compromise, since their judgement always seems to favor a few elite bankers who don't work in the real world.
As far as preventing a monetary crisis due to the need to pump additional funds into the economy, what makes bankers more qualified as to the distribution of newly-created capital than say - a mechanic or a grocer who has to function on a real budget?
It actually would serve the private enterprise capitalistic model much better to hand the stimulus money over directly to every man, woman and child - and to let them allocate the money according to their own needs, if that's what really needs to be done for the sake of creating more liquidity in the system. There would be an inflationary impact, but at least people would have to bear some responsibility for their own follies and foibles, and I believe that the entire system of consumption and production would respond according to the need. (Of course, this does make a small leap in assuming that a trend toward more individual responsibility, rather than the trend toward less individual responsibility would become the norm and not the exception.)
People create benefits and goods from their own labor and there's really a very minimal purpose in having the extra burden of a large and inefficient bureaucracy, that positions itself between the creators and consumers in a marketplace. Like I said, I think that the Fed should be further down the food chain and that banks should be more like convenience centers than profit centers.
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>
<< <i>
Yes, Frank. The government had a good reason to take everyone's gold in 1933 just as the government had a good reason to kill and steal land from the Indians and to put American citizens of Japanese ancestry in concentration camps during WWII. If the government wants to steal our gold I'm sure they'll have no problem coming up with good reasons. >>
The government didn't "take everyone's gold" -- it was exchanged for other forms of money. The executive order (approved by Congress) prohibited HOARDING of gold. Coins held in collections were exempt, as was $100 face in gold coins per person...5 oz, that was not a trivial amount of buying power. A family of 5 could hold 25 oz, some $42,000 in today's buying power. Plus all the jewelry you could afford. A number of banks, investment syndicates and individuals realized that holding huge amounts of gold during a depression was very profitable. As prices of everything tumbled, the relative value of gold increased, thus making the holders grip even tighter, and causing prices to fall even more. Just like when the financial markets
locked up in Sept 2008.
It's an OLD battle between the gold standard Republicans and the free silver Democrats that can be seen in our coinage history. When the coinage of silver dollars was ended in 1873 by hard money gold standard advocates, forcing all transactions to be paid in gold through New York banks (previously the mints would make silver dollars out of newly mined western silver) the world was plunged into -- what was called at the time -- the "Great Depression" The depression ended in 1879, a year after 2,000,000 newly made Morgan dollars a month entered commerce. After 15 prosperous years the gold standard advocates got the Bland-Allison and Sherman Silver acts repealed in 1893. Coinage of dollars slowed to a trickle as collectors trying to find 1893 to 1895 Morgans know! Again, the country was plunged into a depression..
Let's revisit William Jennings Bryan's 1896 "Cross of Gold" speech--
There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it.
You come to us and tell us that the great cities are in favor of the gold standard. I tell you that the great cities rest upon these broad and fertile prairies. Burn down your cities and leave our farms, and your cities will spring up again as if by magic. But destroy our farms and the grass will grow in the streets of every city in the country.
My friends, we shall declare that this nation is able to legislate for its own people on every question without waiting for the aid or consent of any other nation on earth, and upon that issue we expect to carry every single state in the Union.
I shall not slander the fair state of Massachusetts nor the state of New York by saying that when citizens are confronted with the proposition, “Is this nation able to attend to its own business?”—I will not slander either one by saying that the people of those states will declare our helpless impotency as a nation to attend to our own business. It is the issue of 1776 over again. Our ancestors, when but 3 million, had the courage to declare their political independence of every other nation upon earth. Shall we, their descendants, when we have grown to 70 million, declare that we are less independent than our forefathers? No, my friends, it will never be the judgment of this people. Therefore, we care not upon what lines the battle is fought. If they say bimetallism is good but we cannot have it till some nation helps us, we reply that, instead of having a gold standard because England has, we shall restore bimetallism, and then let England have bimetallism because the United States have.
If they dare to come out in the open field and defend the gold standard as a good thing, we shall fight them to the uttermost, having behind us the producing masses of the nation and the world. Having behind us the commercial interests and the laboring interests and all the toiling masses, we shall answer their demands for a gold standard by saying to them, you shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.
>>
A fella once called me ignorant and I took offense to it. I was so offended, that I thought I'd better look up the definition of the word before proceeding.
ig·no·rant /ˈignərənt/
Adjective
1.Lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.
2.Lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular: "ignorant of astronomy".
For the matter I was being called ignorant over, I was definitly "ignorant". But I had to prove it to myself. Today, I don't take offense over the term and instead see it as a challenge to better understand the subject matter.
Frank, you can't battle ignorance with education as some folks "bask" in their ignorance and will defend it to the death. As such, until a spark of curiosity toward actually learning about something is started, the ignorant will always be ignorant and instead choose to "believe" what they "feel" that they know. Right or wrong, they feel comfortable with their positions.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>I have to point out that maintaining a gold standard limits available currency to a finite level, keeping the Fed (or other
financial units, such as the banks in the 1800's) from doing anything to alleviate a crisis. >>
... or create one
A strict gold standard does have its negatives, but the more the government can do to "help" the more it can do to hurt (unintentionally or otherwise). It cuts both ways.
I think that most individuals kept what gold they had.
Remember that when gold was "revalued" the Federal Reserve Notes were only worth
60% of the gold they were worth the day before.
The people who had gold probably were not FDR lovers anyway.
<< <i>A fella once called me ignorant and I took offense to it. I was so offended, that I thought I'd better look up the definition of the word before proceeding.
ig·no·rant /ˈignərənt/
Adjective
1.Lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.
2.Lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular: "ignorant of astronomy".
For the matter I was being called ignorant over, I was definitly "ignorant". But I had to prove it to myself. Today, I don't take offense over the term and instead see it as a challenge to better understand the subject matter.
Frank, you can't battle ignorance with education as some folks "bask" in their ignorance and will defend it to the death. As such, until a spark of curiosity toward actually learning about something is started, the ignorant will always be ignorant and instead choose to "believe" what they "feel" that they know. Right or wrong, they feel comfortable with their positions. >>
Let me get this straight....if one disagrees with Frank's position that person is ignorant, uneducated, unsophisticated, lacking knowledge, etc.
Ergo, I am basking in my ignorance?
Wow! That's very presumptuous, pompous, not to mention elitist point-of-view you have there. Nice going, champ!
<< <i>
<< <i>A fella once called me ignorant and I took offense to it. I was so offended, that I thought I'd better look up the definition of the word before proceeding.
ig·no·rant /ˈignərənt/
Adjective
1.Lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.
2.Lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular: "ignorant of astronomy".
For the matter I was being called ignorant over, I was definitly "ignorant". But I had to prove it to myself. Today, I don't take offense over the term and instead see it as a challenge to better understand the subject matter.
Frank, you can't battle ignorance with education as some folks "bask" in their ignorance and will defend it to the death. As such, until a spark of curiosity toward actually learning about something is started, the ignorant will always be ignorant and instead choose to "believe" what they "feel" that they know. Right or wrong, they feel comfortable with their positions. >>
Let me get this straight....if one disagrees with Frank's position that person is ignorant, uneducated, unsophisticated, lacking knowledge, etc.
Ergo, I am basking in my ignorance?
Wow! That's very presumptuous, pompous, not to mention elitist point-of-view you have there. Nice going, champ! >>
Give him a break. He admitted that he was ignorant.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>
<< <i>In a dictatorship they just take things with no recompense. >>
You might ask the Americans of Japanese descent who were involuntarily sent to "relocation camps" during WWII what their thoughts are on that claim. >>
Again, you have to understand the mood of the period. Certainly nothing we should be proud of, but maybe it will keep it from happening again. And although it was a case of too little too late, the Nisei were ultimately compensated.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
Yes, Frank. The government had a good reason to take everyone's gold in 1933 just as the government had a good reason to kill and steal land from the Indians and to put American citizens of Japanese ancestry in concentration camps during WWII. If the government wants to steal our gold I'm sure they'll have no problem coming up with good reasons. >>
The government didn't "take everyone's gold" -- it was exchanged for other forms of money. The executive order (approved by Congress) prohibited HOARDING of gold. Coins held in collections were exempt, as was $100 face in gold coins per person...5 oz, that was not a trivial amount of buying power. A family of 5 could hold 25 oz, some $42,000 in today's buying power. Plus all the jewelry you could afford. A number of banks, investment syndicates and individuals realized that holding huge amounts of gold during a depression was very profitable. As prices of everything tumbled, the relative value of gold increased, thus making the holders grip even tighter, and causing prices to fall even more. Just like when the financial markets
locked up in Sept 2008.
It's an OLD battle between the gold standard Republicans and the free silver Democrats that can be seen in our coinage history. When the coinage of silver dollars was ended in 1873 by hard money gold standard advocates, forcing all transactions to be paid in gold through New York banks (previously the mints would make silver dollars out of newly mined western silver) the world was plunged into -- what was called at the time -- the "Great Depression" The depression ended in 1879, a year after 2,000,000 newly made Morgan dollars a month entered commerce. After 15 prosperous years the gold standard advocates got the Bland-Allison and Sherman Silver acts repealed in 1893. Coinage of dollars slowed to a trickle as collectors trying to find 1893 to 1895 Morgans know! Again, the country was plunged into a depression..
Let's revisit William Jennings Bryan's 1896 "Cross of Gold" speech--
There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it.
You come to us and tell us that the great cities are in favor of the gold standard. I tell you that the great cities rest upon these broad and fertile prairies. Burn down your cities and leave our farms, and your cities will spring up again as if by magic. But destroy our farms and the grass will grow in the streets of every city in the country.
My friends, we shall declare that this nation is able to legislate for its own people on every question without waiting for the aid or consent of any other nation on earth, and upon that issue we expect to carry every single state in the Union.
I shall not slander the fair state of Massachusetts nor the state of New York by saying that when citizens are confronted with the proposition, “Is this nation able to attend to its own business?”—I will not slander either one by saying that the people of those states will declare our helpless impotency as a nation to attend to our own business. It is the issue of 1776 over again. Our ancestors, when but 3 million, had the courage to declare their political independence of every other nation upon earth. Shall we, their descendants, when we have grown to 70 million, declare that we are less independent than our forefathers? No, my friends, it will never be the judgment of this people. Therefore, we care not upon what lines the battle is fought. If they say bimetallism is good but we cannot have it till some nation helps us, we reply that, instead of having a gold standard because England has, we shall restore bimetallism, and then let England have bimetallism because the United States have.
If they dare to come out in the open field and defend the gold standard as a good thing, we shall fight them to the uttermost, having behind us the producing masses of the nation and the world. Having behind us the commercial interests and the laboring interests and all the toiling masses, we shall answer their demands for a gold standard by saying to them, you shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.
>>
A fella once called me ignorant and I took offense to it. I was so offended, that I thought I'd better look up the definition of the word before proceeding.
ig·no·rant /ˈignərənt/
Adjective
1.Lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.
2.Lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular: "ignorant of astronomy".
For the matter I was being called ignorant over, I was definitly "ignorant". But I had to prove it to myself. Today, I don't take offense over the term and instead see it as a challenge to better understand the subject matter.
Frank, you can't battle ignorance with education as some folks "bask" in their ignorance and will defend it to the death. As such, until a spark of curiosity toward actually learning about something is started, the ignorant will always be ignorant and instead choose to "believe" what they "feel" that they know. Right or wrong, they feel comfortable with their positions. >>
The first goal of education should be to teach people how to think critically. it makes it almost impossible to think in such a manner.
<< <i>Again, you have to understand the mood of the period. >>
Locking up people who have been charged with no crime is an abomination and should never happen in a free country. There is no excuse for it. Not even "mood of the period".
<< <i>Certainly nothing we should be proud of, but maybe it will keep it from happening again. >>
You can hope that it's safe to count on the government to not react similarly in the future, I guess. Maybe you'll be lucky.
<< <i>And although it was a case of too little too late, the Nisei were ultimately compensated. >>
"And although it was a case of too little too late, some of the Nisei were ultimately somewhat compensated."
Fixed it for you.
How much would *you* consider necesary to compensate you for being forced from your home, losing nearly all of your possessions and being locked up for several years? Would you be satisfied with $20,000?
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>So is there a consensus on the best way to own gold , in case the government wants to once again own it all again ? >>
Anonymously.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
David Hall says have FUN with your coins!!
So that would stand muster with the gubermint?
I think so.
Maybe we can stay on this discussion and not rehash the political stuff?
<< <i>Uh,
David Hall says have FUN with your coins!!
So that would stand muster with the gubermint?
I think so.
Maybe we can stay on this discussion and not rehash the political stuff? >>
How can it not be political when the topic involves the government taking your gold?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
I picked up two pre 33 gold pieces yesterday for about $370 less than they would have cost on eBay.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>
<< <i>A fella once called me ignorant and I took offense to it. I was so offended, that I thought I'd better look up the definition of the word before proceeding.
ig·no·rant /ˈignərənt/
Adjective
1.Lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.
2.Lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular: "ignorant of astronomy".
For the matter I was being called ignorant over, I was definitly "ignorant". But I had to prove it to myself. Today, I don't take offense over the term and instead see it as a challenge to better understand the subject matter.
Frank, you can't battle ignorance with education as some folks "bask" in their ignorance and will defend it to the death. As such, until a spark of curiosity toward actually learning about something is started, the ignorant will always be ignorant and instead choose to "believe" what they "feel" that they know. Right or wrong, they feel comfortable with their positions. >>
Let me get this straight....if one disagrees with Frank's position that person is ignorant, uneducated, unsophisticated, lacking knowledge, etc.
Ergo, I am basking in my ignorance?
Wow! That's very presumptuous, pompous, not to mention elitist point-of-view you have there. Nice going, champ! >>
I did not say that. What I said was that most people are ignorant regarding what occured in 1933 and refuse to educate themselves about what "really" happened and what was really needed.
Most people today, have absolute no idea what money "really" is. They do not know what the Federal Reserve Bank is or what part it plays in our and the Worlds economy.
They instead use their own ignorance against themselves which compounds the situation.
Its the difference between intelligently looking at the problem and how to fix it vs joining the mob and simply destroying everything and then declaring it fixed.
A lot of people revel in their own ignorance and noithing can be done about that. It happens every day on HSN and coin Vault. It happens everyday on eBay. They don;t know what they are doing but they continue to do it. That, is ignorance (Lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular) when the ability to educate oneself is no further than the keyboard and a determination to figure out what is really happening.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>A fella once called me ignorant and I took offense to it. I was so offended, that I thought I'd better look up the definition of the word before proceeding.
ig·no·rant /ˈignərənt/
Adjective
1.Lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.
2.Lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular: "ignorant of astronomy".
For the matter I was being called ignorant over, I was definitly "ignorant". But I had to prove it to myself. Today, I don't take offense over the term and instead see it as a challenge to better understand the subject matter.
Frank, you can't battle ignorance with education as some folks "bask" in their ignorance and will defend it to the death. As such, until a spark of curiosity toward actually learning about something is started, the ignorant will always be ignorant and instead choose to "believe" what they "feel" that they know. Right or wrong, they feel comfortable with their positions. >>
Let me get this straight....if one disagrees with Frank's position that person is ignorant, uneducated, unsophisticated, lacking knowledge, etc.
Ergo, I am basking in my ignorance?
Wow! That's very presumptuous, pompous, not to mention elitist point-of-view you have there. Nice going, champ! >>
Give him a break. He admitted that he was ignorant.
And I'm (n)ot afraid to admit it either. However, I do have the capability "learning" which seems to elude some folks.
The name is LEE!
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
Yes, Frank. The government had a good reason to take everyone's gold in 1933 just as the government had a good reason to kill and steal land from the Indians and to put American citizens of Japanese ancestry in concentration camps during WWII. If the government wants to steal our gold I'm sure they'll have no problem coming up with good reasons. >>
The government didn't "take everyone's gold" -- it was exchanged for other forms of money. The executive order (approved by Congress) prohibited HOARDING of gold. Coins held in collections were exempt, as was $100 face in gold coins per person...5 oz, that was not a trivial amount of buying power. A family of 5 could hold 25 oz, some $42,000 in today's buying power. Plus all the jewelry you could afford. A number of banks, investment syndicates and individuals realized that holding huge amounts of gold during a depression was very profitable. As prices of everything tumbled, the relative value of gold increased, thus making the holders grip even tighter, and causing prices to fall even more. Just like when the financial markets
locked up in Sept 2008.
It's an OLD battle between the gold standard Republicans and the free silver Democrats that can be seen in our coinage history. When the coinage of silver dollars was ended in 1873 by hard money gold standard advocates, forcing all transactions to be paid in gold through New York banks (previously the mints would make silver dollars out of newly mined western silver) the world was plunged into -- what was called at the time -- the "Great Depression" The depression ended in 1879, a year after 2,000,000 newly made Morgan dollars a month entered commerce. After 15 prosperous years the gold standard advocates got the Bland-Allison and Sherman Silver acts repealed in 1893. Coinage of dollars slowed to a trickle as collectors trying to find 1893 to 1895 Morgans know! Again, the country was plunged into a depression..
Let's revisit William Jennings Bryan's 1896 "Cross of Gold" speech--
There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it.
You come to us and tell us that the great cities are in favor of the gold standard. I tell you that the great cities rest upon these broad and fertile prairies. Burn down your cities and leave our farms, and your cities will spring up again as if by magic. But destroy our farms and the grass will grow in the streets of every city in the country.
My friends, we shall declare that this nation is able to legislate for its own people on every question without waiting for the aid or consent of any other nation on earth, and upon that issue we expect to carry every single state in the Union.
I shall not slander the fair state of Massachusetts nor the state of New York by saying that when citizens are confronted with the proposition, “Is this nation able to attend to its own business?”—I will not slander either one by saying that the people of those states will declare our helpless impotency as a nation to attend to our own business. It is the issue of 1776 over again. Our ancestors, when but 3 million, had the courage to declare their political independence of every other nation upon earth. Shall we, their descendants, when we have grown to 70 million, declare that we are less independent than our forefathers? No, my friends, it will never be the judgment of this people. Therefore, we care not upon what lines the battle is fought. If they say bimetallism is good but we cannot have it till some nation helps us, we reply that, instead of having a gold standard because England has, we shall restore bimetallism, and then let England have bimetallism because the United States have.
If they dare to come out in the open field and defend the gold standard as a good thing, we shall fight them to the uttermost, having behind us the producing masses of the nation and the world. Having behind us the commercial interests and the laboring interests and all the toiling masses, we shall answer their demands for a gold standard by saying to them, you shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.
>>
A fella once called me ignorant and I took offense to it. I was so offended, that I thought I'd better look up the definition of the word before proceeding.
ig·no·rant /ˈignərənt/
Adjective
1.Lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.
2.Lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular: "ignorant of astronomy".
For the matter I was being called ignorant over, I was definitly "ignorant". But I had to prove it to myself. Today, I don't take offense over the term and instead see it as a challenge to better understand the subject matter.
Frank, you can't battle ignorance with education as some folks "bask" in their ignorance and will defend it to the death. As such, until a spark of curiosity toward actually learning about something is started, the ignorant will always be ignorant and instead choose to "believe" what they "feel" that they know. Right or wrong, they feel comfortable with their positions. >>
The first goal of education should be to teach people how to think critically. it makes it almost impossible to think in such a manner. >>
I believe that this is where we, as a society, have failed our children and their children. We failed to teach them two things:
1. Communication
2. Abstract thinking
Everything is black and white in todays world but we certainly did not start out that way.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
<< <i>Uh,
David Hall says have FUN with your coins!!
So that would stand muster with the gubermint?
I think so.
Maybe we can stay on this discussion and not rehash the political stuff? >>
How can it not be political when the topic involves the government taking your gold? >>
for the sake of this hypothetical discussion, is the government taking my gold during an audit, or is there a shiny black boot stepping on my neck?
It is highly doubtful the government has been selling the public gold coins since 1986 (1982, really) and is then going to sieze them back.
the government will attempt to apprehend tax cheats, laundered criminal money, stolen gold, and gold used to fund terrorism,
long before it will try to take your coin collection from you that you have receipts for, and you have no other evidence of criminal past or suspicious behavior patterns
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
It's okay around the neck. I gave it as a gift , once or twice. In bezel, in rings... people like small fractional gold in earrings, necklaces and bracelets. I've seen it kept in about every way.... People keep it right up until such time as they need "REAL MONEY". I mean "cash". That's what is needed to pay the bills. I like coins and wish more Americans could see the value of the NUMISMATICS and understand when and why there is a large premium to spot with graded gold , particularly "GEMS".
We could discuss coins , but I don't want to upset you fellas who are uberly polarized with politics here.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>
<< <i>Uh,
David Hall says have FUN with your coins!!
So that would stand muster with the gubermint?
I think so.
Maybe we can stay on this discussion and not rehash the political stuff? >>
How can it not be political when the topic involves the government taking your gold? >>
Ditto!
The name is LEE!
1933 double eagles come to mind . . .
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
Most people today, have absolute no idea what money "really" is. They do not know what the Federal Reserve Bank is or what part it plays in our and the Worlds economy.
They instead use their own ignorance against themselves which compounds the situation.
Its the difference between intelligently looking at the problem and how to fix it vs joining the mob and simply destroying everything and then declaring it fixed.
A lot of people revel in their own ignorance and noithing can be done about that.
The Gold Confiscation Order was only one of the things that FDR did, and whether or not he intended to actually confiscate private gold doesn't matter as much as the fact that he threw a wet blanket over gold and removed it from the public's hands as a vehicle for savings, commercial trade or for monetary exchange. The order was effective in placing full control of the monetary system in the hands of the Fed, and that was the intention.
At the same time, Congress passed the Glass-Steagall Act which kept commercial banking and securities banking separate from each other until the big banks and Robert Rubin managed to lobby it out of existance so that they could mutate into the TBTF entities that they are now.
I knew it would happen.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire