quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

Silver  $47.85   Gold $1511.40

Basically folks you only have a few weeks left to buy silver.       

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

Silver  $47.85   Gold $1511.40

Basically folks you only have a few weeks left to buy silver.       

Why?  Are they running out of it?

Hoard aluminum!

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

That walks right past all the facts.  Indeed, the country in its yout was a bad bargain, and we used spanish and later french gold coinage as our standard at the outset, and portugese and english (of course) and state and local banks issued their own scrip, nobody was going to sign a paper with us, we didnt have the full faith and might in those days.

In any case, it did not 'move' to a gold standard in the way you suggest.  It standardized what a scrip to gold weight and purity would be.  Much like hogsheads, barrelheads, inches, furlongs, and now the standard by which we measure a meter, and time (all atomically) more exacting.   No nation just starts printing scrip that is widely accepted out of the blue, lacking any history or proof of backing.  


The constitutions ratification in 1789 put a stop to some of the shakey shit going on in state and local banking and our first national bank in Philly created 1791......so, from 1776 to 1789 to get the ideas of what we should be in writing and agreed, and 2 years to slam up the federal banking system, so this 30 years off the standard is baloney.....the overnight hyperbolebullshit is nothing save some conspiritorial canard.

   

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Bimetallism persisted until March 14, 1900...

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Bimetallism persisted until March 14, 1900...

Ooooooooohhhhhhh!

Bimetallism.

Sounds kinky. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

"I think what DK is looking for RO (and MR), is EVIDENCE. Not the ramblings of some lunatic. Real, hard evidence that supports your arguements. If you have no evidence, be a man and admit it. "

Forget silver, what about gold ? It is a well known fact that the government called in all the gold in supposedly private hands. It was a ten grand fine for being in posession of gold. Everybody knows that (I think). That's your wonderful FDR at work here.

And since they called in all the gold, where the hell is it ?

What's more the reason was people might hoard it ? What the fuck ? That's what you're SUPPOSED to do when the government sells your future up the river.

T^T

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

all very wrong, the idea of states being able to command gold and silver in payment of debt is to insure that there is no possible way to creat an alternative bartering scheme between states other than the cohesive federal one. peri fuckin od. you got either federal scrip or you got gold or silver, nothin' else.

Roosevelt did not take us off the gold standard, Nixon did in a series of financial policies and laws called the Nixon Shock collectively.  Roosevelt made it illegal to trade in gold and silver publically,

that is taking us off the gold standard defacto ron.

at large in the citizenry, and that law was also repealed in 1974.

sure because it was no longer needed after the change to toilet paper with a purty green design on it was completely in place.

The idea was that they could prevent a great deal of hoarding and speculating manuevers, the inevitable crash after the big bubble, which you see today due to that law being repealed. 
not even close.

"wrong" NOT

you got "part" of it.  it did standardize.

both to standardize and force the states to use ONLY GOLD COINS FOR DEBT.  didnt matter where the hell the came came from could use krugarrands to pay debt for all they gave a shit as long as it was gold coins.

you can read all about it in the coinage act 1789 I believe.

your federal scrip statement is wrong since the gold clause was not added in the 1900's.  federal scrip evolved after 1861 when the banks took over the government and put the whole country under martial law and was official with the federal reserve act.

This shit does not happen in 1 day.  That is go from concept to full implementation.

Bimetallism persisted until March 14, 1900, with the passage of the Gold Standard Act, which provided that:

"...the dollar consisting of twenty-five and eight-tenths grains (1.67 g) of gold nine-tenths fine, as established by section thirty-five hundred and eleven of the Revised Statutes of the United States, shall be the standard unit of value, and all forms of money issued or coined by the United States shall be maintained at a parity of value with this standard..."

Thus the United States moved to a gold standard, made gold the sole legal-tender coinage of the United States, and set the value of the dollar at $20.67 per ounce (66.46 ¢/g) of gold. This made the dollar convertible to 1.5 g (23.22 grains)—the same convertibility into gold that was possible on the bimetallic standard.

A gold-standard 1928 one-dollar bill. It is identified as a "United States Note" rather than a Federal Reserve note and by the words "Will Pay to the Bearer on Demand," which do not appear on today's currency. This clause became obsolete in 1933 but remained on new notes for 30 years thereafter.


its not what they tell you that is true, its what they DO!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

"I already smacked you down on your delusions about FDR and gold."

If you're talking about post #31 there you did nothing of the sort, in fact you mention saved the banks, this and that. In a way you almost helped make my point.

It's not the facts with which I disagree, it is their meaning. If the banks would've been allowed to fail then, what would've happened ? What would it do to the common people, who happen to include alot more voters than bankers ? People were already in soup lines or raising rabbits for food.

But don't let me shatter any illusions here. Your words - something like immediate devaluation, and with no recourse for the people who were literally robbed. They presented it to you in a way that would make you draw pro "them" conclusions. I don't fall for that bullshit.

T^T

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

"keeping people from putting more money down those black holes,"

Bull fucking shit, it was to keep people from taking money out of the banks. You can't be that gullible.

T^T

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

"keeping people from putting more money down those black holes,"

Bull fucking shit, it was to keep people from taking money out of the banks. You can't be that gullible.

T^T

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn


~FR~


Some basic economics.

In a period of deflation, i.e. lowering prices, nobody wants to spend because they're waiting for prices to go down further. Why spend today when your increasing value currency will buy more next month or next year? Not to mention that businesses running at slim margins drop like flies during deflation. Ask the farmers in the 1870's-90' US how great deflation is. Completely wrecked them. Ask the Japanese how good deflation is. They've been stuck in neutral over ten years. Nobody wants to buy unless they have to.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

"I already smacked you down on your delusions about FDR and gold."

If you're talking about post #31 there you did nothing of the sort, in fact you mention saved the banks, this and that. In a way you almost helped make my point.

It's not the facts with which I disagree, it is their meaning. If the banks would've been allowed to fail then, what would've happened ? What would it do to the common people, who happen to include alot more voters than bankers ? People were already in soup lines or raising rabbits for food.

But don't let me shatter any illusions here. Your words - something like immediate devaluation, and with no recourse for the people who were literally robbed. They presented it to you in a way that would make you draw pro "them" conclusions. I don't fall for that bullshit.

T^T