Join The Trading Room

Dialectic Money

By Rick Ackerman Posted on November 18, 2010, 4:37 am EST Last Updated November 18, 2010, 1:56 pm EST

(When we talk about “honest money,” most of us have in mind a currency that can be freely exchanged for gold. In the essay below, Steven George Fair, a frequent contributor to the Rick’s Picks forum, explains why the choice of what we deem money is fraught with concerns about the very nature of liberty, and about our willingness to order our economic lives with money that has been imposed on us by feudal overlords. Ralph Waldo Emerson once wrote that “A man is usually more careful of his money than he is of his principles.”  And therein lies the problem, even for those who would attempt to make a fresh start with bullion-backed money. Ultimately, it’s not the backing that is crucial, but the freedom for individuals to decide for themselves what is acceptable as money. RA)

There is sage wisdom in the study of history.  Historically, the same arguments that are raging today in regard to economics, government, and Nature are the same arguments that have always raged.  The only change is the players, and no real change occurs in us because, after all we are men and women, male and female, rib of my rib. Culturally there are those tribal cultures that base wealth on time to eat, laugh, play, and enjoy family.  And then there are the traders: those that stretch out to gather more than is needed to sustain happiness, seeking obsessive control.

Do we toil as serfs under our system of legal tender?

I’ll focus on the traders.  Each generation thinks they are different, and superficially they are — in the way they wear their hair, pierce their bodies, or color their skin.  Beyond the superficial new way of being, we are the products of where we come from, or where we think we come from.  Our generational arguments are based in belief in Creation by positive act of a superior being, or by creative cosmic winds, dusts, and sludge.  When born a child has natural instincts that prevent it from crawling off a cliff, tell it how to suckle, cause it to recoil from pain, and find comfort in the motherly touch.  Additionally, one child will fight, another will just lie there and take it.  I now have a basis to establish why reality is not reality when it comes to history, fact, and the nature of men.  Why do persons in markets, governments, and social groups reject what is, and cling to what was not in regard to money?

Puka Shells

The history of money is well documented.  A better source of information is the book Pieces of Eight by Dr. Edwin Vieira PhD, who also wrote the treatise for the Act of 1985 on specie Coin money for Congress.  Yet, there is someone who will argue about precious metals as money, or puka shells as money.  There are those who will argue about Coin in the control of the People, and money in the control of government, or an individual.  Knowing the theory upon which one bases their opinion is not much thought about today.  So, when I write about democracy versus a republic, a child graduating from high school has no basis in education to understand because he was taught in public school that a democracy is what we have, and it must be the same as a republic which is in the constitution.  Then we have the democratic-republic, or Judeo-Christian oxymoronic primal morass of goo. Today there are dialectic truths.

It is true that the money in use is executive out of the control of persons, who may advise the executive via democratic means.  It is likewise true that specie Coin is valued by the legislative branch under the Authority of the Sovereign in Common.  It is true that specie Coin has a value based in labor.  It is also true that fiat has a basis in general and paramount lien under the Banking Act of 1913.  It is absolutely true that one may use Coin to extinguish, and one may use fiat to discharge.  Underlying all of that is the question of voluntary ‘use’, and involuntary ‘use’, and what it means.  What does time, space, and plane mean?  In 1776, there was an ongoing argument between two dialect realities.  The reality between a feudal scheme, and Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Happiness won a limited battle that did not eliminate those who would have kings over them.  The dialectic between those who will raise kings over them and those who will live sovereign by Authority of the Sovereign has raged for over 5000 years.  Those who thrive on saying these represent  “choice” only give the choice to follow them democratically. Where is society today in relation to choice, and to the battle between Sovereigns in Common, and subjects enfranchised to the petty gods?

Out of Control

The stock market, the bond market, the currency market all reflect dialectic reality in that there are many truths.  It is only when the dialectics are attempted to be fused, or are in fact fused, that things get out of control.  The condition of being out-of-control defines where society is today.  A trader in fiat and democracy tries to infuse specie Coin money into his equation under a feudal Lord.  The anarchist in democracy, not wanting personal responsibility, tries to imagine his is a republic instead of mobocracy under the control of the king within feudalism. And then, we have republicans failing to teach their most prized possession, children, sending them off to propaganda tolerance in Brahman Dharma religious schools of the federal government.  It is true that the federal government runs all public schools via the purse.  And, it is true that the several States, and ultimately the parent, are required to teach children the reality of the founding of this Republic, and its money.  Each parent is responsible to the child to teach that Bernanke is a fraud, a criminal, and immoral under the Law of the Nation, and several States.  It is true that there are Sovereigns in Common, and it is true there are corporate enfranchisees created legislatively by the abuses of the legislative branch. The word “Peer” means what?  And if one’s peer does not judge him, how can there be justice in the reality of dialectics?  Democracy does not like black, and/or white because it prevents propaganda from working saying that a legislatively created corporate enfranchisee person is the same as a Person created by the Creator. (review Article IV, and the 14th voluntary political act to study Person versus person, Superior and inferior). Mulatto is the goal of mobocracy – and public education; everything identical and the same, the primal goo the primal norm.

The arguments that precious metals are not the Coin base for the  Republic under the control of the People via their legislative body are simple hog swill.  This is contract Law under the Original Contract Constitution.  The dialectic of money for the several States, versus the territories, military reservations, guano-islands, dock-yards, magazines, and the District of Columbia is where imperfect thinking takes logic to the swirling mass of primal cosmic goo.  A democratic-republic is swine feces. Anyone crying about the manipulation of the markets, and speaking about the Republic, honesty, morality, fair trade, Coin, and Separation of Powers Doctrine has failed dialectic reality.

I, Rancher

Money can be private by contract, just as there is private law by agreement.  Money belongs to the people via their legislative body, and violation of the trust is punishable by death for embasement, and forced loans. Money belongs to the Crown in a feudal scheme.  Under the Magna Carta, money was taken back to the legislative branch of a quasi-monarchy, the king beheaded along with Thomas, Earl of Strafford.  Trading ‘futures’ belongs to the feudal scheme, the lord Obama allowing an inferior to enslave those below him.  I, rancher, have a hundred head of cattle.  But I, trader, control a thousand ranchers, and 100,000 head of cattle, via the Chicago trading pit. Some persons want to control.  Others just wish to be warm, fed, loved, and left alone.  Contract, and dialectic realities in regard to what money is, is fact.  Money is anything persons contract to say it is, whether cow hides, tally sticks, or fiat paper.  Quite another thing is specie Coin in its real value over the span of 5000 years as the base contract for the United States of America under a Superior Sovereign in Common, and a highly limited governmental republic. #44 Obama, #43, #42, #41, #40, #39 et al. operate under a unilatarian theory that the Commander in Chief is the Creator/Master/ Lord over everything, subject to no law, treaty, protocol, agreement, or constitution.  One either supports the reality, and is the problem, or; one disenfranchises and peacefully subsists by Right, every ready in defense.

History, the history of money, the history of men, the same old arguments, the same old needs.  Truth is not black and white.  Dialectically there are many truths about government, about law, about natural forces.  In Our Republic silver Specie Coin is the money by contract for the several States and Sovereigns in Common. In Our Republic the People are the Superior, the government the inferior. These things I speak of about ‘the truth’ in the Republic are black and white even if the reality about money globally is a dialectic based upon the core differences between those who wish to be free and moral, and those who wish to control everything as a lord.  The truth is that most want all of the benefits of an immoral economic power, but none of the responsibility of facing the facts, and  paying the fiddler.  Most arguments are wisps-in-the-wind because they are confounded by dialectics instead of contract.  You simply will not be able to understand because you do not know who you are, where you are, what your law is, and what your money is by contact.

Magic Elixir

How do I know this dialectic reality?  Through the trade of futures, and the crying about going back to honest money as some magic elixir that will fix the rebellion of the people, and their representatives who live in moral corruption, and giving away of Rights by assent to legalese in violation of the law.  The system works by enslaving first the rancher, then the worker, then all Americans via the Banking Act of 1913, then the South American, then the Japanese, then Chinese who are a whole bunch smarter in regard to the overlord over extending himself in foreign affairs.  Better study the history of empires starting with the U.S., the British, Portuguese, Indian, all the way back to why the Roman Empire failed with its executive phony money and mercenaries.

Now work to bring all thoughts together into this common arena.  People are the problem in dialectic abuses based in organic differences at birth. I am a sculptor who can see perfection in a rough block of nothing. You will never be.  Weave that reality into the study of economics and trading markets — and into Bernanke-speak, which I cannot fathom, and never will be able to fathom.

(If you’d like to have Rick’s Picks commentary delivered free each day to your e-mail box, click here.)

  • F. Beard November 21, 2010, 7:04 pm

    There is no debt with common stock, eh? Benjamin

    None is required. Assets and labor can simply be bought with new stock issue. This has the effect of sharing wealth rather than reaping it.

    Okay. Since you seem to know so much about the 1600s and onwards… Prove it. As far as I know, there was debt that in that period, just as surely as there was before and as surely as there was today. Benjamin

    Sure there was; I never said there wasn’t. My point is that there need not be (much) debt if have true liberty in private money creation.

    And will be, in the future. Benjamin

    Not if we allow true liberty in private money. A return to a government imposed or even favored gold or silver standard is not the way out of the debt trap.

    As for limiting government, the obvious course is liberty, not chaining it and us to a precious metals standard.

    This is my last word in this thread.

    later days, amigo.

  • F. Beard November 20, 2010, 9:37 am

    The solution to government over-spending is not more private means by which people can go into debt. Benjamin

    With common stock as money, there is NO debt. Assets and labor would simply be bought with new stock issue. Of course, the issuer would have to have some capital to start with in order for people to freely accept his money.

    The solution is to abolish taxation, even tariffs, and let the power of currency weight revaluation do what it would do. Benjamin

    Any you call me a anarchist? 🙂 While I would like to see government wither away to a minimum, I don’t want to see people starve as a result. And without taxation, I don’t see how government money could retain its value.

    We can avoid another 1,000 years of screwing around to no avail if we just exercise a little common sense from the lessons of history. Benjamin

    I suggest Stephen Zarlenga’s book “The Lost Science of Money” as an antidote to the “gold is money” meme. He covers quite a bit of history. Yes, his solutions are socialistic but his diagnosis is excellent.

    Sigh… long live the Depression… Benjamin

    There is no need to have a Depression if we would simply bailout the population with new legal tender but that is a different subject.

    • Benjamin November 21, 2010, 4:24 pm

      There is no debt with common stock, eh? Okay. Since you seem to know so much about the 1600s and onwards… Prove it. As far as I know, there was debt that in that period, just as surely as there was before and as surely as there was today. And will be, in the future.

      But before you fire back…!

      The point I was making was that of taxation is the cause of more borrowing of private monies, as people need something to borrow in order to meet the demand imposed on them. BUT simply issuing endless TP is NO DIFFERENT than endless borrowing. The only thing different is the destiny, ie, depression or hyper-inflation. Death through withdrawal or death through over dose.

      And it’s not surprising why…

      No matter what the money is (even gold and silver would have the same problem; in fact, they did!), tax and spend is the taking of someone else’s money and spending it for them. You cause price inflation while leaving them with no means to deal with that inflation on their own.

      Thus people find a way to avoid the tax. They avoid the thing being taxed, cheat, get political, borrow, or print. Thus government, even small government*, is given the task of filling the sieve by adding more holes to it. They engage in the shenanigans, too. Force, you see, cannot fail, lest the cheiftan look weak and unable (for all that he fails anyway)!

      *Contrary to what some/many think, the past was no Eden. It as merely less ugly, destined to morph into what we have today. The reason is that of taxation and no public control over the weight of money.

      As for the “anarchy” of no taxation… Nice try, but facilitating governance from the bottom up is natural law. When people see lawlessness on the rise, they will, in time, naturally move to fund government on their own (which solves legal tender issues, btw). When they do not see it on the rise, they will retain their money instead, forcing Congress to value the dollar weight lower in order to maintain a moth-balled government. But wax and wane is far from total absence.

      I think what you meant to say was mobocracy. And so what if it is? Man has natural flaws, too, which can’t be gotten around. He will from time to time make stupid and unavoidable mistakes, be that over or under funding government. But a system which limits the duration of the former, and extends the duration of the latter, allows people to correct their mistakes on their own. It’s a universe apart from the extended slavery we have today. It forces man to stay the course of the least pain, which is usually production and trade conducted under law and order.

      But until the day comes where man isn’t monkeying around trying to avoid honesty/cope with dishonesty, I’ll impatiently wait and insist.

  • F. Beard November 20, 2010, 1:13 am

    The “special privilege” is needed to prevent unlimited government funding. Benjamin

    The way to limit government spending is to remove legal tender laws for private debts and allow alternative private currencies. That way, if the government over issued the population could 1) refuse the government’s money and 2) use a private alternative. In order to restore demand for its money, the government would have to raise taxes (unpopular) and/or cut spending.

    • Benjamin November 20, 2010, 3:33 am

      Why? So the private sector can indebt itself to itself in order to meet the demands of a government yielding force?

      Ask Thomas Jefferson why he died indebted to private creditors. Then ask the Constitution why O why it had to allow taxation into this representative Republic, to kill the idea before it was even born.

      (Also, and I’ll take your word for it, question the destiny of common stock in the rise of industry. While not in itself guilty, it was a coping mechanism for the use of force, just as the certificates-for-gold scam was a coping mechanism for the same problem).

      The solution to government over-spending is not more private means by which people can go into debt. The solution is to abolish taxation, even tariffs, and let the power of currency weight revaluation do what it would do. But I know what you’ll say…

      “Ben, I know you love your gold so very much. Let’s let competition decide, eh?”

      And that would be fine, except that that’s exactly like letting elections “change” things. It will fail to change anything, and all would be worse off for wasting the time and effort. We can avoid another 1,000 years of screwing around to no avail if we just exercise a little common sense from the lessons of history.

      Sigh… long live the Depression…

  • F. Beard November 19, 2010, 11:47 pm

    Changes nothing of the fact that to have and preserve liberty means two metals. Benjamin

    Liberty means liberty, friend. Precious metals are orthogonal to it. Liberty would allow gold and silver (or anything else) for private money supplies so what’s your complaint?

    • Steve November 20, 2010, 12:31 am

      Seems like we are stuck between Anarchy and Order. There are 5 torts of which I can only remember 4. [5000 year old Oral Law] These are the Common Oral Law/Tradition as Assault, Fraud, Theft, Trespass. In contract for government gold and silver are the ‘value’ to stop shavers, and “Theft” for the Peace and Dignity of the People. One is never at Liberty to scream “Fire” in a theater, but; one is at liberty to violate tort Law. One is never at Liberty to misrepresent, but; one always can take liberty to steal by fraud. Liberty is defined by Sin, and sin is known by the Law. Other than that we may digress into the Law of the Fit, and the Law of Survival wherein a statement likely to provoke a violent response will get a violent response, and the one who opened their mouth to cry fire will surely be hammered by a superior at some point, even if not by the first he offends.

      Liberty is about ‘respect’ of the Rights of Man, and the Oral Tradition of 5000 years of Law.

      We have transgressed the Law, but; Anarchy is not the answer in terms of Public Right to Individual Contract.

    • Benjamin November 20, 2010, 12:49 am

      Beard,

      The “special privilege” is needed to prevent unlimited government funding. I don’t want wars of “nation building”, to name one thing, but if any Joe can give to government any thing as funding, and the majority happen to see no problem with that, then we have endless wars of nation rebuilding.

      Again, total freedom is NOT, nor ever will be Liberty.

      But to be fair, gold/silver coin could do that too. But read my other post, in regard to the balance of n / d = dollar weight. It would be short-lived. People would have to continuously extend their gold/silver weight, forgoing their own use of it, for as long as the war continued. Which is to say, we would be forced to feel the pain of our actions. We’d become adverse to repeating the act so much. So, we would be forced to ask well before the point of no return if such adventurism is worth it.

      Now, I’ll give _you_ the benefit of the doubt that you would not use your common stock as anaesthetic. But that trust, among millions? No.

  • F. Beard November 19, 2010, 11:37 pm

    Does that fact substantiate being “dumbed down” ? Steve

    Agreed. Liberty in education is something else I support so that at least SOME children will get a decent education.

    • Steve November 20, 2010, 12:20 am

      The obligation of the Parent, not the government. Another grievous error being made.

  • F. Beard November 19, 2010, 11:33 pm

    For all that something is 5,000 plus years of proven policy, you thump the bible as modern-day enlightenment. It’s okay for YOU to invoke antiquity to acheive enlightenment in mockery of “debate”… but not someone else who is genuinely trying to show you something. Benjamin

    Gold and silver may have long histories but I point out that the Industrial Revolution got started after the invention of the common stock company in 1602. Coincidence? I think not.

    But why argue? If you wish to use gold and silver as purely private money forms then by all means do so. Have the gold in Fort Knox distributed to the citizenry too. Just don’t try to achieve government privilege for your (or anyone else’s) private money form is all I insist.

  • F. Beard November 19, 2010, 11:26 pm

    The problem with anarchists like you is that you reflexively construe any regulation as tyrany. It’s freedom, yes, but too much of a good thing kills. Then you have to audacity to call ME a primitive goon, even though that is precisely from where you preach. Very disingenuous, liberal-like. Benjamin

    You obviously love gold and silver. Fine. That’s your business. But I love less primitive and more just money forms such as common stock which require neither precious metals nor usury. So, how can your favorite money forms and mine compete on a level playing field? The only way I can conceive of is separate money supplies for government and the private sector. But if anyone is allowed to coin the government’s money be it with gold, silver or anything else then they have co-opted the government’s authority and are in fact counterfeiting.

    So, use gold, silver or whatever for private money supplies. Heck, practice fractional reserves with them for all I care. But you must not be allowed to counterfeit the government’s money supply. Whether you use lead, copper or pure gold, it would still be counterfeiting.

    • Benjamin November 19, 2010, 11:38 pm

      As I said, construe to your hearts content. Changes nothing of the fact that to have and preserve liberty means two metals. If it were boogers and paper, or common stock and scotch tape, I would uphold those.

      I have no love for the what the gatekeepers are, but a deep respect is another matter. Liberty is what I love, and so long as total freedom threatens it, I’ll continue to call a duck a duck.

    • Steve November 20, 2010, 12:17 am

      Thank you Benjamin.

  • F. Beard November 19, 2010, 8:31 pm

    Congress can solve this by once more opening the Mint to the free coinage of gold and silver. They also should decide an equation by which they regulate the weight, which wouldn’t make a mockery of the idea of a representative Repulic (unfortunately, the Constitution left it up to whim, apparently, which cannot protect liberty, in the long run. Benjamin

    Nope! Let gold and silver stand on their own in a true free market of PRIVATE money creation. Government money should be pure fiat to avoid favoring any private money form such as precious metals.

    • Benjamin November 19, 2010, 10:37 pm

      Beard,

      Yeah, yeah, yeah… I’ve pretty much given up on you ever grasping the reasons, seeing as how you’ve not once made any effort to do so. But for what it’s worth, and if only to give you a peice of my mind after months of being patient…

      The problem with anarchists like you is that you reflexively construe any regulation as tyrany. It’s freedom, yes, but too much of a good thing kills. Then you have to audacity to call ME a primitive goon, even though that is precisely from where you preach. Very disingenuous, liberal-like.

      And, finally, that you haven’t the liberty to violate Liberty… That’s exactly the point. And while you may diguise and construe it in a number of ways, to your hearts content, you’ve no real moral and ethic ground to stand on. And if the truth is unpalletable, well… too bad.

    • Benjamin November 19, 2010, 10:45 pm

      Forgot to say one, all-important thing…

      You’re a hypocrite. For all that something is 5,000 plus years of proven policy, you thump the bible as modern-day enlightenment. It’s okay for YOU to invoke antiquity to acheive enlightenment in mockery of “debate”… but not someone else who is genuinely trying to show you something.

      You’re either very young and foolish, or older and enjoy toying around. Whatever the case, it’s not good.

  • F. Beard November 19, 2010, 5:24 pm

    You, F.Beard will do well. 5000 years is my final argument, versus 40 some years. We shall see F.Beard whether a new paradigm outdoes 5000 years of history. steve

    The common stock company was only invented 408 years ago with the Dutch East Indies Company. One could argue that that invention greatly contributed to the rapid progress we’ve had since then. The one remaining step, imo, is for common stock to be directly used for money and thus bypass the usury class altogether.

    Great fun today with you, and the others. steve

    Sometimes I wish I had studied law. Certainly the average citizen needs to know more of it.

    • Steve November 19, 2010, 11:28 pm

      Funny F.Beard, I read a test given to Junior High School aged students in about 1900. Current [ 10 years ago] 2nd year law students could not answer the questions.

      Does that fact substantiate being “dumbed down” ?

    • Steve November 20, 2010, 12:02 am

      And as a second thought. One can argue that 40o and 8 years ago a child quickening in the womb had the Right of Inheritance, and death by assault was punishable against the perpetrator. 200 and 33 years ago we were Sovereign in Common with Allodial Estate [opposite of feudal]. 60 and 1/2 years ago I was born with no debt and the Right to Inherit the Covenant of Abraham at quickening as Unalienable Right, thus inheriting Allodial Estate. Additionally, I found security at Article IV, sec. 2, Const. “The Citizens of each State shall be Entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.”

      Era 2010 and a child gains inferior corporate legislative status only upon exit from the womb and severance of the umbilical cord to comply with “All persons born or naturalized in the UNITED STATES, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens. . .No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens. . ., nor deny any person life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;. . .” Just read the self evident truths “. . . subject. . .”, under legislative grants that are not required of an American National. Titles are now Fee Simple Absolute. Fee is the opposite of Allodial. According to Blacks Law Dictionary Fee is British feudalism to a lord superior, fee, fife, feod, feud, feudal tenant, peon, serf, slave. Every child born in 2010 to a ‘c’itizen is 400k in debt, under treasonous forced loans, cannot inherit Unalienable Rights, and has no claim to the Constitution, only the 14th voluntary political act.

      One can discount the Capitalization mid sentence but that would be a grievous error. It is really hard to discount Article IV, sec. 2 Immunity and Privilege on the several States. Additionally, it is very hard to discount the superior, or antecedent secured Rights at Article IV & V of Amendment on property, due process, warrants, Life, Liberty, & Property; Due Process Clause, that is far more ancient than the state its self.

      Is everyone able to claim Article IV, and Article IV & V of Amendment, and thus the Constitution – No; otherwise there would be no need for the repeat in the 14th with little legislative grants of territorial corporate existence via 28 U.S.C. 3002(15) a foreign corporation created about A.D. 1872. Equality comes under Master/Servant Law, and the new paradigm of democracy were in the State is the Lord of Land who says YOU do not have the Right to Inherit Allodial Freedom. Look at your deed in Fee Simple Absolute, and wonder why it is not in Allodium when the 1828 Websters Dictionary makes it very clear the Fee is British Feudal and if one does not hold Allodial Title – they are . . . . .What ?

  • Terry S November 19, 2010, 6:08 am

    You’re a good man, Steve.

  • Steve November 19, 2010, 5:44 am

    Thanks TerryS. The lead in “If this was a student’s paper. . .” is valueless to the honest expressions you just make, and which I appreciate in personal individual terms.

    Thus; “If this were a student’s paper, I would require a rewrite with more focus on his central themes and less pedantry.” is fraught with unnecessary put down trigger words “. . . student’s paper. . .”, “I would require a rewrite. . .”. all expressing superiority of position and human dismissal. I’m afraid you were not responding to the writing, but; to the forum telling them what you would require of “him”. In other words I believe you were writing to Rick based upon the word use. But then; what is normal in Oregon, is not normal in N.J. or Mass. is it? Simply TerryS, you dismissed me as a Man and wrote about an inanimate object pronoun to Rick. This is much of what is wrong, yes ?

    I would receive in neutral terms “Steve, I would enjoy reading the work with more focus on your central themes.” “May I ask you a question?” Culturally learned norms are very strange TerryS. Insecure – I don’t think so! Defensive, justifying in the face of a perceived put down, YUP!. Feeling the drug anger at being put down, yes. My “Stand” is personal, and I live it. I’m not some Ph.D. talking a theory. I live my stand. And I expect no one to follow. I sound the horn if any care to listen, or if they have ears to hear.

  • Terry S November 19, 2010, 5:13 am

    To Steve, the first of Don Ruiz’ four agreements:
    number one speak impeccably: number two don’t take it personally. My comment was prefaced with ” if this were a student’s paper…” that means Steve, it is contrary to fact. Your insecurities are showing Steve. Now for some useful feedback: number one what are the four agreements of Ruiz and his book by the same title? number two, who is Occum (also Accum) and what does his razor have to do with our discussion? Number three, what is wrong with the following equation: good trader equals material wealth equals esteem of others? I used to get paid for this kind of junk, but since I am a non- sponsoring critic, I felt compelled to reply with more specifics. You have some excellent point Steve simply elaborate further on your main themes and avoid trying to stick too much into one sentence or2 or 3 sentences which divergence onto multiple tangents and facets. A theory which explains everything explains nothing.

  • Steve November 19, 2010, 4:45 am

    There we are F.Beard. Nice theory about interest. You may not charge your brother usury. The foreigner among you you may charge, but; not your brother. F.Beard the favorite stock can be money. Yet, it is fluid and able to be used to shave the interests of your brother. Isn’t that what trading is all about where the Trader on the Chicago Floor trades the 100 cattle of the Rancher, and a 100 Ranches in Ohio, together with the ranches of 10,000, all; merged together with margins to skim profits from 100 x 100 x 10,000 =________ ? Stock is a great form of money. Isn’t that what going Short, or Long is all about ? Stock is fluid money, yes ! On the other hand, 371 4/16th gains of fine 99.999 silver or 413 grains of 90% coined Coin silver “Specie” was established upon the Spanish Milled Dollar in 1792, and is the same “Value” today. How long has the Spanish Milled Dollar been accepted as a “Value” F.Beard ?

    Fransix, money is fluid in all respects in private contract. Only in “rebellion”, and intent to destroy Contract is silver Specie Coin Money legislatively defined as a Dollar for the People “fluid in “V”alue”. I use the Capital “P”eople to mean the Sovereign in Common in contradistinction to a 14th amendment ‘subject’ inferior. The persons you reference are no longer People, but; subjects of their own undoing by breach of Contract. A game is played and the rules changed by the skullduggery of greed and power lust to control the lives of others, and to shave. “P” does not equal “p”.

    A “Dollar” is a constant Value since 1792. Federal Reserve Notes, Stock, and Bull Crap are what? – variables that can be skimmed since 1971, and cow manure much older as ‘original’, or ‘diluted’ plant food that was/is skimmed by variables.

    Why must there be rebellion? Why can’t we all just get along knowing Contract establishes the “Value” of silver Specie Coin money in 1792, 1985, and 2010? Why can’t we all just get along accepting that the “Value” 413 grains 90% coined Coin, 371 4/16ths fine 99.999 keeps the shavers and bankers from cheating the People. Why can’t well all just get along accepting that the word Dollar only means one Thing by legislative Act for the several States. And, why can’t we all just get along knowing that some choose the rebellion of congress in outlawry, and the misrepresentation of security and benefits, while other People do not volunteer to the skullduggery? Getting along is very very easy. It is a matter of Contract that binds the voluntary beneficiaries of Public Trust office to prosecute breach. Answer why the congress does not prosecute ‘breach’ and one will know who is gaining by the shaving.

    • Benjamin November 19, 2010, 5:10 am

      “And, why can’t we all just get along knowing that some choose the rebellion of congress in outlawry, and the misrepresentation of security and benefits, while other People do not volunteer to the skullduggery?”

      I’d have no problem with it if they kept it to themselves. Unfortunately, they’re like little pyromaniacs, always spreading the fire.

      As for the agreement to the weight of a dollar, I’ve also no problem with where it’s at. It’s just that the people haven’t spoken on it in a long time, and stagnation, especially under the influence the ancient horror, is not healthy. Therefore, current representation of reality (ie, free people) is questionable at least.

      Congress can solve this by once more opening the Mint to the free coinage of gold and silver. They also should decide an equation by which they regulate the weight, which wouldn’t make a mockery of the idea of a representative Repulic (unfortunately, the Constitution left it up to whim, apparently, which cannot protect liberty, in the long run. Therefore we are here today).

  • F. Beard November 19, 2010, 4:20 am

    However, under Contract “M”oney and the Value of Money is one “Thing” in “silver Specie” Coin. steve

    Yet Greenbacks were never found unconstitutional were they? And the Constitution may be amended, mayn’t it?

    But in any case, the logic is compelling: Government money is backed by the government monopoly on force and private monies MUST be backed by truly voluntarily acceptance else they are not truly private.

    The Framers just never believed the People would rebel and vote in skullduggery to enslave themselves in greed of security. steve

    Precious metals as money have inherent problems; they are not ideal. It is no wonder that they have been rejected even in favor of full legal tender fiat. But let’s agree to disagree and we shall see, shain’t we?

    • Steve November 19, 2010, 5:16 am

      Yes F.Beard I respect your thoughts and processes. My final tally – under Specie I was debt free when I was born in 1950. Today a child born is 400k in debt under forced loans of a tally that is completely variable, and as history has shown is not leading to Liberty. Control is condensing into the laps of the few, and profits confined to the Upper Caste. You, F.Beard will do well. 5000 years is my final argument, versus 40 some years. We shall see F.Beard whether a new paradigm outdoes 5000 years of history. Great fun today with you, and the others.

  • Jill November 19, 2010, 4:09 am

    Steve, sounds like you assume that all conservatives agree with you & obey or enforce the “Original Contract.” Judging from the responses on this forum, most folks, whether liberal or conservative, have no idea what you are talking about. Seems like you have your own set of unusual beliefs, that apparently are associated with certain particular facts of long past history, that few other people know about. Good luck with them.

    • Steve November 19, 2010, 5:10 am

      Right on Jill. The many have never done the work of the few. Shame isn’t it that someone would reference being an American in Democracy. Polarizing, yes Jill. No one practicing democracy will agree with me ever. 50% + practice democracy as liberals. Am I right Jill ? Isn’t it true that 535 federal legislators all practice democracy – yes, no ! What are you saying Jill ? Are you liberal, or no ? Are you a Citizen with Rights far more ancient and antecedent to the State Jill, yes, no? Do you have a specific “Culture” and “Heritage”, yay, nay? I don’t believe we can all get along, but; there was a great start 200 years ago when a group of men set forth a Contract for Freedom and Liberty.

  • F. Beard November 19, 2010, 3:26 am

    People want money to mean some sort of absolute, when its fluid in all circumstances. FranSix

    Yep, you got it. Gold and silver are primitive forms of money,imo. It is absurd (and environmentally destructive) that economic growth should be tied to the mining rate of precious metals. An absolutely fixed money supply makes more logical sense but that leaves the problem of where the interest would come from. Rothbard implies a fixed money supply could work but I have my doubts. But hey, let the free market decide, I say.

    My favorite private money form is common stock. However, for the average citizen, for the sake of diversification, I imagine the common stock of common stock holding companies would be the ideal money form in addition to the government’s money supply.

  • F. Beard November 19, 2010, 2:02 am

    There is no need to argue about the nature of money as long as we agree to disagree. Therefore I suggest the following ground rules to enable us to peacefully disagree:

    Separate money supplies for the government and private sectors:

    1) Government money would be pure fiat and only legal tender for government debts (taxes and fees) not private ones. Fractional reserve lending would be forbidden in it.

    2) Private monies would only be good for private debts. They would be totally unacceptable for government debts.

    Government money is backed by force, the government’s taxing authority; it need not and should not be backed by anything else otherwise it would be government endorsement of a particular private money form such as PMs.

    Private sector money , OTOH, must NOT be backed by force otherwise it is not truly private (voluntary).

    • FranSix November 19, 2010, 3:08 am

      Its interesting, is it not? People want money to mean some sort of absolute, when its fluid in all circumstances.

    • Steve November 19, 2010, 4:04 am

      F.Beard, we can agree to disagree about money because money is a matter of contract between individuals. I’ve said over and over; You and I contract and the Bull Manure in my field is money by our agreement and contract. Money is any Thing that private contract says it is by agreement and meeting of the minds. Want to make money notches on a stick in tally – OK we can contract. The contract that Jill ignores is “To coin Money, and regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin,. . .”, Article I, sec. 8, cls. 5. “Ole Crikey” pay attention to the noun and verbs used. Look up what Jefferson had to say about the Federal Government and money.

      The fourth part of money is what congress may do territorially under Article I, sec. 8, cls 17, and Article IV, sec. 3, cls. 2. This governs what a corporate enfranchisee of democracy may do in agency for their master creator legislation accomplished by force under anti-constitutional breach of the Separation of Powers Doctrine by military force long ago. This is “Tally” numbers for the master based in the Lien against the ‘credit’ of a Man’s hands through his lifetime – call it the actuary of flesh value. In this case the congress owns your flesh and obtains loans against flesh value.

      The fifth part of money is that most do not know what they do not know in regard to democracy being a private form in rebellion – democracy is an inferior sphere of rebellion/private corporate government – the corporate charter registered with the state, or domicled in the District under Article I, sec. 8, cls. 17. This is corporate government defined at 28 U.S.C. 3002(15), a foreign corporation in relation to the several States. Doubt me and I’ll bring the case law to the table.

      The second part of money is contract estoppel against the several State’s governors at Article I, sec. 10, cls. 1 of the Contract Constitution. That contract states “No state Shall . . . make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.”

      The third part of money is ‘specie’, or silver Specie Coin money defined legislatively in 1792 as quid pro quo with the Spanish Milled Dollar at 371 4/16ths grains of fine, or 413 grains Coin silver struck at the Mint as required for Legal Tender. This FBeard is because of shavers. Or, criminal banking theft by misrepresentation on the “Value” of the word “Dollar” in the limits of the several States. This FBeard is because of shavers who will dilute their cow crap to cheat Contract Obligation.

      What was the first thing? Oh ya! Private Contract “No State . . . Shall . . . pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts. . . Article I, sec. 10, cls. 1. That would be the several States. But, what of territory and what about corporate enfranchisees domicled within the district corporately doing resident business over a several State?

      You should like this one – No corporate enfranchisee 14th amendment peon has the Right of Contract, that domiciled in the congress’s creation powers under Article I, sec. 8, cls. 17 / Article IV, sec. 3, cls. 2.

      You see Jill, contract is enforced against YOU and YOU, right F.Beard ! You just do not know what you do not know. Adhesion Contract, and Implied Contract under Roman Civil Law and the inferior benefits of enfranchisee of the corporate powers of congress. Justification of rebellion is what ? Rebellion and Outlawry by Fee Simple Absolute; fee, fife, feod, feud, feudal tenant, peon, serf, slave, Blacks Law Dictionary Fourth Revised Edition 1968. Got it F.Beard. We agree money is anything. However, under Contract “M”oney and the Value of Money is one “Thing” in “silver Specie” Coin.

      The Framers knew Bankers and Individuals would shave. The Framers just never believed the People would rebel and vote in skullduggery to enslave themselves in greed of security.

  • DG November 19, 2010, 1:24 am

    Interesting interview and another opinion:
    go to minute 13 of the 25 minutes with Mad Max!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjIWH7CSP8U

  • Jill November 19, 2010, 1:14 am

    “Original contracts” are so far back in history that 99.9% of people consider them irrelevant to the day’s events. A few people who are big on history can argue among themselves happily about it.

    It seems to me that exchange of goods and services, or the money that is to represent them, is always done in a manner that makes sense to all participants today. Contracts mean little, unless they are a part of mutual understandings, which mean everything. We have mutual understandings today of what our government is and is not; almost all of them are incorrect, but since people act as if they are correct, they may as well be. As Pogo famously said “We have met the enemy and he is us.” We are the government, as someone already said, above here. The government is what we the people choose, or at least tolerate, regardless of the history of original contracts.

    • Steve November 19, 2010, 3:19 am

      Jill, This is a prime example of why we are in trouble. Contract is Contract. And there is only breach or performance. In true form there is a meeting of minds, to reach agreement. On paper the agreement becomes a contract normally titled “Agreement”. There are also verbal contracts, quasi-contracts, implied contracts, and the list goes on and on.

      The simplistic thought that somehow a new feudal paradigm in U.S. mobocracy, involuntary compelled political choice, is done by everyone is just wrong. That some assent to outlawry and breach of contract is fact.

      Is that what you are saying Jill. That because you assent to outlawry, and engage in breach makes me guilty of utterly null and void acts. Please do some research on the words; U.S., united States, United States, United States of America, united States of America, DISTRICT OF OHIO.

      I will not play, or volunteer to the slavery of the 14th voluntary political act under the “Colors” of the Commander in Chief as the new lord in succession. You Jill, are at liberty to commit treason if you wish because that is very easy today in the nature of rebellion. You Jill at at liberty to force your will and understanding on others. I just do not need to play that misrepresentation.

      You take voluntary Office. You take Oath/Affirmation to obey the Original Trust Contract for the Republic several States. Simple matter of ethics and morality. Liberalism attempts to change the rules and change the rules, until no one shall win; general summary of Chief Justice John Marshall when faced with an immoral debater who said there is no Immutable Law.

      Summary, the government must obey the Original Contract – period. Now, wanting to speak of outlawry and rebellion in Breach – yes we agree. We are in trouble because no one will honor their Word. And, no contract is better than the Men who shake hands.

      Then we have the administrative courts of “Equity”. Which opine that it isn’t equitable that Jill be held to her word because it might be painful to face trial for what she agreed to do.

  • FranSix November 18, 2010, 11:46 pm

    I would say that the the discount rate coupon is what prevents short term treasuries and money market issues from the treasury from becoming currency. (without going into a discussion about how he sells sea shells by the seashore.)

    We are down to a five-day interval where these rates are being decided. (just look at the discount rate daily chart and count out the bunches of five-day intervals in the last couple of months.) As the money market grows in size and shortness of breath, then rates decline. But so far, the discount rate and repo’s remain above zero.

    The minute the interest rate on very short-term money-market issues actually goes to zero, then these short term issues become a debt instrument with a zero interest rate coupon, essentially no different than currency. You would essentially be money-printing hugely at that point if you were to continue to provide any amount of short term paper to the money market.

    So at zero interest rate, you cannot be said to be propping anything up such as preventing the discount rate from going negative, and you are devaluing the currency directly.

    Essentially what I’m saying, is that at .13%, even an interest rate this meagre prevents any amount of paper printing from becoming currency. (the money supply is never the less being increased as the demand for short term paper increases)

    Money would have to become very scarce at that point, should interest rates decline to zero, especially since the cardinal rule that prevents you from counterfeiting the currency would be violated if you were to continue. Very likely the Fed will be seen to work with the Treasury in negative interest rate terms, should that occur.

    Now, what makes gold money is that it will never tarnish. If the whim of the market prices gold bullion, say @$8000/oz. U.S., then who, in their right mind, will argue with that? As a zero interest rate financial instrument with no coupon, it can’t be printed in any way, and is rare. Thus it would have the inverse effect as money, that its price must rise relentlessly the lower interest rates go. (or that the spread continually narrows between the discount rate and the bullion lease rate.)

    Silver is inferior to gold in that it blackens, you will be obliged to sell it at a discount over your purchase price, and they can take it, refine it again and boastfully reap a profit from people who would buy it again in the hopes that it will retain its value. No bank in their right mind would hold this on their balance sheet.

    But the bankers, in their “right mind,” have leveraged the bullion markets 100X on the short side. Considering how scarce money can become below the zero bound, it may be a given that people will turn to taking delivery on their bullion futures contracts, rather than roll them over.

  • Terry S November 18, 2010, 9:14 pm

    If this were a student’s paper, I would require a rewrite with more focus on his central themes and less pedantry.

    • Steve November 18, 2010, 10:36 pm

      Terry, there is no question that Rick is the “best” pen here. There is a single reason why this is Rick’s Picks Forum; yes ! I accept Rick’s superiority with the pen without question, without fear, without resentment. I respect the superior I.Q. and knowledge of business that many who comment herein possess. I really respect the Men and Women who can successfully Trade in these Markets. I respect the wisdom of International comments/commenters whom I learn from herein. I radically accept that there are people who read this forum who knows things that I don’t even know I don’t know in regard to business and markets. I am in awe.

      Maybe I completely misunderstand what it is that you are saying TerryS. But, based upon a mental filter created by catastrophic events in plenty. I take the ‘student’ part to be demeaning from a implied “Superior”. I may be wrong, but; I take the lack of substance as liberalism/liberal bigotry. This is what I make of what you write TerryS because it lacks purpose in this forum other than to demean the messenger, and avoid the message. Please bring out your red pen along with your credentials as a Free Man, and Editor. Then craft knowledge into understanding in a manner that does not offend “joe sixpac”, and can move “joe sixpac” to obey Contract Law/Obligation of Citizenship. I can write what needs to be said in short form. Here it is for your personal gratification:

      I am not the best pen. I will never be the best pen. I will never be like you. I struggled with English Comp/Lit in College. My hand/eye co-ordination got many a paper rejected for penmanship no matter what the content. I got A’s & B’s in science [zoology, botany, organic chemistry / chemistry /nuclear chemistry] and math without study, or opening the book.

      The central theme for you without abstraction:
      “You don’t know your ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to money, slavery, or the Republic.” Please take this poor english student’s paper and craft a factual response to enlighten and haze “joe sixpac” to a responsible position as a Citizen on one of the several States. I defer to a superior “Professor” who will teach “joe” to be responsible to Original Contract, and show him the error of his ways.

  • warren November 18, 2010, 7:30 pm

    I know I’m just a lightweight intellect, according to most of you fellows, but I don’t care. What we really need is a separation of stupidity and state, a separation of criminality and state, and a separation of fear and state.

  • Steve November 18, 2010, 7:21 pm

    Ya all make me smile ! My points painted like a Great Master of many brushes by the forces of the forum. To support Benjamin – all we need do on the several States is just agree to obey the contract Constitution. Now we have the rub. Those in ‘use’ of democracy ‘frn’ are assaulting, breaching the Original Contract, and are the ones to cry out “Can’t We Just Get Along”. I will follow the Contract. Or, I CHANGE to follow the contract. Or, I will leave.

  • GLENNH November 18, 2010, 7:03 pm

    Wow Rick, good thing it is pub day. I am going to bring this along. Hopefully the conversation will not turn physical.

  • Bradley November 18, 2010, 5:22 pm

    Wikipedia: “Dialectic is based on a dialogue between two or more people who may hold differing views, yet wish to pursue truth by seeking agreement with one another.”

    I’m sorry, but I don’t have what it takes to try to seek agreement with the above, and the author doesn’t seem to have an interest in seeking agreement with anyone.

    I think this sums up our current condition. Civil society is only possible with compromise, and somehow, large percentages of our world population have become so polarized that compromise and the process of seeking mutual interest has become a lost art.

    I’m tryin’ over here Steve, but I’d like to see a little more softness over on your side…

    “Can’t we all just get along?”

    • Benjamin November 18, 2010, 6:44 pm

      “I’m tryin’ over here Steve, but I’d like to see a little more softness over on your side…Can’t we all just get along?”

      Fortunately, there can be no comprises until the base itself is solidly honest. So if it is the power to compromise that you seek, you would do far better to not compromise on the one issue that truly, truly matters.

    • roger erickson November 18, 2010, 7:30 pm

      Hear, hear! “On matters of principle, stand like a rock. On matters of fashion, go with the [flow?]” good ol’ TJ

      To paraphrase Socrates: “Success tracks consistency.”

    • roger erickson November 18, 2010, 7:33 pm

      “Group context survival tracks clarity of group purpose, which tracks consistency of group perception.”

  • fallingman November 18, 2010, 5:10 pm

    We’re so far from this point that it seems silly to even mention it, but we desperately need a separation of money and state, just as we need a separation of education and state.

    • roger erickson November 18, 2010, 7:25 pm

      Lord(s) have mercy! We’re hearing that from a citizen of a relatively successful nation-state that’s part of a social-species? Where does this idea come from that the government is anyone but us? [probably a mistake to mention on this site; but what the heck – it’s not yet a done deal, and wasn’t even in 1775]

      This whole fixation on gold strikes me as always tempting but ultimately limited thinking. Accept that there are no simple answers. We are context-nomad and will always have to improvise to surf multiple individual & group contexts simultaneously.

      Context dictates survival strategies, and the hard lessons learned over millennia are that:
      1) highest cost = cost of coordination
      2) highest return = return on coordination
      3) ergo: smartest investment = investment in coordination (not gold, sorry; too simplistic)

      Where does that leave both gold & fiat money? Currently necessary but not sufficient. In small groups, context awareness is efficiently shared, and affinity serves as an adequate medium of exchange. As population size scales up, affinity has necessarily been augmented by indirect bookkeeping, which will for the foreseeable future always include both commodities of interest PLUS sovereign issuance of fiat “notes of credit/taxation”. That won’t change until people figure out a better/faster/cheaper way. Going back to the gold std alone won’t work – it already failed.

      1.) a units of account – inventions used to serve multiple processes, from hyper-local & hyper-temporal to distant & far future (best medium of exchange to your descendants is sustainable group intelligence)

      2.) a productive medium of exchange – defined by context (get over it!; we’ll always have affinity, barter, commodity-equivalence & fiat credit; even local coupons/vouchers/mileage-points & various local currencies, not to mention charity, welfare & even minimal human rights)

      3.) dynamic stores of value – again, defined by context
      (how much would you sell your citizenship for?)
      (are soldiers/citizens be executed for treason?)
      (endless anecdotes expected, but the question endures all contexts)

    • roger erickson November 18, 2010, 7:27 pm

      meant to say that:
      “This whole presumption of fixation on gold ALONE strikes me as always tempting but ultimately limited thinking. That apparent presumption misleads a lot of kids. Please be careful to spare them the over simplification.”

    • Benjamin November 18, 2010, 8:07 pm

      “Going back to the gold std alone won’t work – it already failed.”

      Mmm. Might we question that?

      Because from my perspective, there’s plenty that gold (silver, too) can accomplish, for even longer than there is a burning Sun to speak of.

      If you have a 1 troy ounce, pure gold coin, whay do you have?

      It awaits definition, one not unable to be previded.

      But it has measurable values, purely scientific, that, despite a lacking, current definition, that makes it apparent what you have…

      150,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

      150 decillion. That’s approximately the total amount of gold atoms in the above-ground supply. If 1,000 governments spent 1 quadrillion a year, it would take them 150 quadrillion years to spend every gold atom.

      Or, looked at another way, they/we can do quite a bit of currency weight revaluation.

      So again, what is that coin worth? You’ve more options than has ever been realized through practice on this planet. It offers you flexibility like none other.
      See my response to Mario Cavolo yesterday. See the two posts, today, where I made reference to how it works.

      Why gold, though? Precisely because it’s not very good at much else than accumulating and stabilizing. It is the Sun-king in the monetary court. Silver-moon, the knight-errant, affecting tides. All else is the stuff we make and trade (the exception being the lazy village idiot that is fiat).

    • Steve November 18, 2010, 9:11 pm

      Roger, great intellect.

      Money has cycled many times from the writting of Dr. Edwin Vieria, [Harvard Ph.D. a couple of times over, plus; j.D.]. From what I understand we are cyclical on money, not; linear. It appears that there have been two cycles in anglo-America, and an interrupted cycle in Native America that fused into trade/barter in about 1604, and then the powers of conquest ‘taking’ property through 2010 via enfranchisement to democracy.

      There was a very active North American Native slave trade in 1604 going back about 10,000 years that became Sandwich Island, Africanized after 1604. [money existed in many forms including flesh] I believe money to be cyclical, and slavery to be linear. The greater the population the greater the need to enslave to limit Liberty within the minds of one class of persons – the control babies at birth – the slavers and traders. That high population/control theory is flawed in ‘accountability’. In my belief, the more controls exercised because of the ‘large population theory’ the more irresponsible the population. This is self fulfilling what ? Do we need more legislation to control the daily actions of People, or do we need to use the Original Contract to hold people responsible to the Original Torts of Assault, Fraud, Trespass, Theft, ie; the Common Law?

      Why money/slavery ? That is how a free man voluntarily becomes a slave. That is, the free Man volunteers to have his ear pierced against the jam, that me might enjoy the comfort, get, and wife provided of the master. And, isn’t this voluntary loss of freedom always tied to property owned of another ?

      [Federal Reserve Notes are ‘owned’ by the Government. People own Coin. But, few are the Men who will resist for their Property/Coin/Liberty]. I read it here every day. What am I going to do when they come for my gold. Well, if the gold is theirs give it to them. But, why would any Man let another steal his property? Is it fear. Yep ! You bet! Just say NO! And expect to “Peacefully” defend your property. If “it” is yours defend it. That is the obligation of Freedom. One is at Liberty to defend one’s property from a thief. Or, one can cry and worry and fret and moan about fear.

      I’m scared, aren’t you ? Yet, some wisdom said that if the People fear the government we have tyranny. Are you scared “they” will come take your property? I am scared because MY PEERS have got their head in the sand of democracy.

      And then, the voluntary slave who wanted the property ‘get’ ‘wife’ belonging to the master becomes bitter and fearful beginning to lash out against others who did not pierce their ear voluntarily. Historically, the voluntary slave then seeks to force those at Liberty to his level of irresponsibility via abuses be they legislative, or outright force of mobocracy. Commercial Trade must be smooth for the master, and we need Obamacare to keep the get working. Slavery has been linear here, and money now cycles to enslave via “use” of the master’s Notes.

      (For those who do not understand the ear analogy; Under Hebrew Law an indentured servant was free upon the tenure of his contract. The indentured servant was given a warm place, a wife of the master, and get were born to the servant all owned under CONTRACT to the master. At the end of indenture; if the Hebrew did not wish to loose his warmth, comfort, home, wife, and children all belonging to the master he could volunteer to eternal slavery. To signify this voluntary choice to give up Liberty his ear was pierced with an awl against the Door Post to tell the World of his voluntary choice because the Hebrew wanted the ‘use’ of that which was not his.)

  • Benjamin November 18, 2010, 4:58 pm

    lol… Okay, for the sake of civility and sanity…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic

    “Dialectic is based on a dialogue between two or more people who may hold differing views, yet wish to pursue truth by seeking agreement with one another.”

    I fail to see how its misapplied here, as some contend. Dialectic money means exactly what it says: how two parites come to agree what the medium of exchange is. ie Liberty. People, among themselves, decide. Unless, that is, one accepts the wool over their eyes, but…

    That they do changes nothing of the fact that the contract between government and people is gold and silver (can anyone show me where in the contract (Constitution) that it says otherwise?). Yet here we are… fiat, fiat everywhere. No one upholds the contract. No other contract has ever been drawn, nor the old one cancelled by mutual agreement.

    As for blocks of wood, I do believe Steve is saying… Two people with different understandings, seeking a middle ground. One ignores the contract/accepts the wool. The other, presumably, upholds the contract. Therefore, the latter sees in the block of nothingness what the other does not.

    Why people pick on Steve’s choice of words and expressions, I don’t know. He’s a good, intelligent man. Not that he doesn’t occasionally throw me off, but it’s nothing a little inquiry and conversation can’t solve.

    • Robert November 18, 2010, 6:01 pm

      Amen- wonderfully stated Benjamin.

      I agree that Steve often presents his point of view from what is perceived as a perch of moral superiority, but I grant him this license only on the grounds that I respect his voluminous study (the basis of which instills similar arrogance in B.S. Bernanke, et al.); and I further grant Steve his latitude because I recognize Steve’s commitment to the integrity of the solid foundation that lies beneath the modern 3 ring circus we call the United States…

      Today’s commentary is more poetic and theatrical than it is journalistic, but I enjoyed reading it nonetheless.

  • jagno November 18, 2010, 4:00 pm

    Thank you Edward and Jeff Kahn for attempting to illuminate this muck. Oh, and “I am a sculptor…and you will never be”. You are also arrogant, based on that statement.

    • Steve November 18, 2010, 6:55 pm

      Jagno, I am simply stating that which one knows, that which one knows they do not know, and that which one does not know one does not know. I believed for years that everyone could look into a solid block of material and see the perfect Blue Bird inside. That is not TRUE is it? I did not know what I did not know, though I knew a few things. Jagno, you have a gift somewhere inside you that I will never have. Master Bernanke, I will never understand. Maybe you understand Master Bernanke, yes ? Maybe you understand the linear logic to democracy and taking, and I will never understand. Forget me. I am unimportant. Find a message to discovery that frn are not Dollars. Find the message that everything is Contract. I believe everyone should be correct when they use the word Dollar, as it is a single Thing for the several States. It is true there are Federal Reserve Notes, tallied in numbers having no value. It is true that there are Canada Dollars, and Singapore Dollars. But to call a frn a Dollar for the several States identifies one as not knowing what they do not know. Fear of the unknown, or fearing something one cannot understand is also quite normal. Fear generated by not understanding that everything is “Contract” is also quite normal. And, it is very normal when one is extremely fearful; to assault with anger what they cannot understand. Fight, or flight. I choose to fly and not fight you personally in Rick’s Forum.

  • Benjamin November 18, 2010, 2:53 pm

    A nicely written article, Steve. The whole section on ‘Puka Shells’, in particular. Rebellion/”choice” aside, we are a representative Republic. Therefore…

    The power over money belongs to the citizen. They can extend/retain as much coin weight to government as they have. Call this n. Congress can regulate the value. Call this d. But if n is the weight of credit, what is d?

    Arguendo/ad hoc, population density construed as “dollars per person” determines a base budget/floor which serves as d (which would be ~$25 billion, in current numbers). Congress couldn’t go below the base, without contradicting the power of the people. Why?

    The dollar supply and dominance of it over time are naturally determined by n / d = currency weight…

    a) The more weight credited to government, the higher the dollar weight, with a shorter-lived govt dominance of a smaller dollar supply.

    b) The less weight credited, the lower the dollar weight, the longer citizen dominance of a greater dollar supply.

    Thus the “destruction” of dollars lies solely with the collective of individuals making up their own mind. I say “destruction” because it is really the collective decision to spend or save privately vs restrain through government, for a limited time.

    ie When the dollar weight is high, the people have demanded of govt some decisive, short-term action to a problem (naturally, this cannot include long-drawn out military campaigns nor life-long health care plans).

    I’ve no history supporting the use of such a simple equation, but… the logic of it works. Even with those who would raise a king, fight wars of “nation builing”, and/or “free” health care, they would be limited by the collective will of the people in sum.

    The trouble is/was, the weight of a dollar remained unchanged for a very long time, hence… Central banking had to take root. So the trouble at root is this seemingly eternal dependence on government.

    Or is/was there perhaps another reason? I think so. The same faux pas of civilization since its birth also preceeded the rise of central banking in this Republic, at its birth.

  • kaiser November 18, 2010, 2:52 pm

    I think not having the ablilty to reason creates uncertainty . when your lost in the woods a compass and a map are the tools of choice what we have now is a country lost within itself lacking the essential tools to navigate our way out. Logic and reasoning. lets strip it all down and put things into perspective we need a map and compass. Wait, I think the constitution could serve as a map and a compass as well. Now all we need to do is make a few adjustments and get back on track and we will be good! Lets start today!

  • Eugene November 18, 2010, 2:51 pm

    Having slogged through this piece, I believe the writer is saying that it’s all about integrity or the lack of it and our willingness to hand over our freedom to the nobility (Politicians) through contract (commercial law)… The writer suggests that we don’t know who we are and yes that is true for most. But I would like to suggest to the writer that we can easily point out the faults of this or that but the bottom line is we are just passing through and were we are headed is probably more important that were we are at right now. Having all this knowledge may give some measure of freedom in this journey but in the bigger scheme of things we need to have a look at ‘what we are’ I met one man who expounded on the lines of what is above but I could not find an ounce of charity or kindness in any of his deliberations that would draw me to conclude that I should aspire to any of the ideologies of this ‘Liberty’. I do not suggest that this is the case from the writer of the essay but sometimes we become so entrenched in what we know to be true that we don’t recognize the author ‘Truth’

  • Jeff Kahn November 18, 2010, 2:33 pm

    The author doesn’t seem to understand what dialectic means. Dia means two. Lectic means readings. Not many. Just two. The two readings are the thesis and the antithesis. They must be clearly stated. Then through a classical process known as syllogism (reasoning together) They are meant to be synthesized. Without that understanding the above is just rambling nonsense.

  • dan November 18, 2010, 2:23 pm

    just say gold and silver ARE the coin of this realm, and until we the people are educated to this fact, we will be serfs

    • Robert November 18, 2010, 5:52 pm

      Awww c’mon….

      Now you’ve just spoiled the whole ending to the story for everyone who reads the comments before the commentary 🙂

  • DP November 18, 2010, 2:14 pm

    I agree with you, brother Edward, a simple message has been obfuscated by flowery dialect and rendered meaningless to many (most?) of its readership. Unnecessarily fancy words stroking the ego of an author who perhaps sees himself as a poet, rather than a journalist.

    There is, however, a place for art amongst friends already understanding the subject and wishing to savour the moment together, perhaps looking for a fresh view of the same thing in order to enjoy coming to the same conclusions anew. 🙂

  • Hajdar November 18, 2010, 8:43 am

    Sure, gold’s not fiat. But what if our masters decide that its again illegal to possess gold or they imposes a special tax on bullion holders?

    • Benjamin November 18, 2010, 5:21 pm

      Well, given the numbers, the CB system “would” wind up paying the most, by far. We’re small potatoes, we independents.

    • Robert November 18, 2010, 5:50 pm

      “what if our masters decide that its again illegal to possess gold or they imposes a special tax on bullion holders?”

      In the past 5 years, has Ron Paul:

      A) Gained support of his monetary policy theories?

      -or-

      B) Lost Support of them?

      A tax on bullion holders would simply be another tier in the property tax pyramid, and it would open the door to property taxes on our furniture, and our carpet, and our gardens, etc… Is the citizenry ready to lay down and let this come to pass? Really?

  • Edward November 18, 2010, 6:24 am

    And, speaking of fathoming, I can’t begin to fathom what over riding point (or points) you are attempting to make. When I read, well, slog, really, through pieces like this, I don’t gain understanding, but, rather, I am left confused. I also have an abiding sense that the author is trying to impress me with his breadth of knowledge. It may, indeed be great, but, from where I sit, its application is far from lucid.

    In the meantime, with respect to gold, the argument on its behalf should be based on a simple, if not simplistic, formulation. Not to be reductive it goes as follows: Money has, and has always had, three essential functions. They are…

    1.) a unit of account
    2.) a medium of exchange
    3.) a store of value

    The profound difficulty we presently find ourselves in is owed to ascribing all three functions of money to one entity, namely, The Dollar. A very good case can be made that gold is a time honored antidote to our present peculiar and unfortunate condition. Gold is, by default-and given the present woes of sovereign government debt, no pun is intended- the store of value that the dollar could never be.

    • Robert November 18, 2010, 5:45 pm

      With all due respect-

      Steve’s essay has nothing to do with Gold. His essay is about money, and he presents viewpoint that I also hold in regard: that money be whatever the two counter parties in an economic exchange agree that it is.

      EG: I have a boat, and you have a 1969 Chevy Camaro and we agree to trade my boat for your Camaro.

      Tell me, all you fiat clinging “monetarists” out there- does the boat or the Camaro serve as the money in the exchange?

      And in regards to the 3 bullets above, I have this to say:

      1.) a unit of account – An invention of those who wish to lord over economic transaction so as to impose feudal taxation.

      2.) a medium of exchange – Anything that provides the utility of easy transference would work, but again- this requires the ultimate agreement of all market participants all the time- a cosmically impossible task.

      3.) a store of value – Complete hogwash. Value is what it is- it can not be denominated because it is completely subjective to the tastes of the individual (how many times have I typed that sentence in these forums..? )

    • Steve November 18, 2010, 6:08 pm

      This reply is simply “Joe Sixpac” not knowing the definition of a Dollar, and being confounded by the dialect of a federal reserve note, and what money is, and is not.

    • Steve November 18, 2010, 6:10 pm

      My comment goes to Edward for winning the Joe award.

    • Benjamin November 18, 2010, 6:37 pm

      “The profound difficulty we presently find ourselves in is owed to ascribing all three functions of money to one entity, namely, The Dollar.”

      I’m going to agree here, because what is a dollar?

      According to the Constitution, it is some weight in gold/silver coin. See my post, below. The people should control the extension/retention of weight, while government determines the weight of currency on that amount.

      Domestically, that is what a dollar is. On the world market, there would be no trading in dollars, yen, pounds, etc. Parties would settle contracts purely by weight and/or trade goods denominated in them.

      For example, let’s say the dollar was 400 grains of fine silver. Oil is 10 grains per barrel (1/40th a dollar). I owe you 4,000 grains of silver. The dollar weight changes to 200 grains, before the contract is settled.

      Now, because the dollar weight changed, oil in the U.S. is now 5 grains per barrel. It’s an instaneous transition, allowing you, as the foreign creditor, the option to demand the weight in silver, cheaper oil, or you can accept some of both (or silver or gold equivalent, and any kind of trade good).

      The same can be said of two domestic traders, btw, but the use of foreign parties makes the distinction all the more pronounced, imo.

      Thus, gold and silver are not always necessarily money. Between private parties, it can indeed by anything under the Sun! This is not to say, though, that gold and silver are to be dismissed. In fact, without government and people holding to the Contract (Constitution), such flexibility and versatility are impossible. Trade would confuse and crash in a barter-only system. Gold and silver need to form the basis of civilization, by which all else is possible.

    • Robert November 18, 2010, 8:19 pm

      Benjamin-

      Are you implying that empirical “weights and measures” are a better format for denomination than having a politburo of “independent” academics meeting monthly to set the exchange rates of various forms of printed paper against each other…. ?

      Heresy…. Pure heresy 🙂

      Nature is such a wonderful thing when we simply let her do her magic.

    • Benjamin November 18, 2010, 8:50 pm

      Robert,

      I’m not sure if you’re misreading me or I’m misreading you! So, again, see the post here…

      http://www.rickackerman.com/2010/11/dialectic-money/#comment-13846

      Now, I recently read a peice of England’s monetary history. I forget which queen, but the issue was of a debtor and creditor who disagreed about the contention that the debt was settled when the shilling weighted downward.

      ie, The debt was for x weight, but now the weight is some % <100. The queen argued (and won) that the debt was indeed settled by the shilling, not the weight.

      And, by golly, she was right! Where she was wrong, though, was in who decided that. Was it the people, or some pronouncement from on high?

      That's the difference between moral and immoral. Well, England is England, so there it was moral. But here in this country, morality depends on which party in the contract sets the weight and measures…

      Congress can regulate them, which is not the same as _determining_ them. So who determines them and how? There is only one possibility: the citizen-creditors themselves.

      Heresy? I thinketh not! 🙂

    • Benjamin November 18, 2010, 8:51 pm

      Sorry about the link error…

      http://www.rickackerman.com/2010/11/dialectic-money/comment-page-1/#comment-13832

  • Other Paul November 18, 2010, 5:55 am

    Rick,
    Thank you very much for the up-front summary.

    99% of the people on Planet Earth have little or no bullion.

    99% have fiat.

    Until a reasonable amount of fiat can’t buy necessities (ala Weimar), the 99% aren’t going to “give up” on fiat, in spite of the the fact that Central Bankers can just “print” or “mouse click” the stuff in existence at will.

    The 99% without bullion aren’t going to be very pleased if the 1%ers decide the bullion is “in” and fiat is “out.”


Exit From This Page Back to Trades