| Author |
 Replies: 25 / Views: 3,108 |
|
Valued Member
United States
51 Posts |
With the 100th Anniversary of the Fed next year, a century commemorating the loss of money based on precious metal   but instead on unconstitutional baseless fiat,   I was wondering how everyone here will be "celebrating" next year.        or     . Ever notice that prior to about 100 years ago, coins were primarily of precious metal (gold, silver, copper) and most images on US coins were of different versions of Liberty, but over the past 100 years, instead homage is given to past presidents, and during this same period, the content of precious metal in the coins has been gradually eliminated. Caesar was a king once featured prominently on many Roman coins, but the overextended Roman Empire has since been destroyed. George Washington was a man who warned us of earthly kings and refused to be king of the United States although many in the US wanted him on a royal throne. I wonder what Washington would have thought of his image now being on a coin instead of images of Liberty he was accustomed to seeing during his time. What do you think we should give homage & thanks to, the God-given liberties given to each human & protected by the Constitution, or to give homage & thanks to earthly kings? *** Moved by Staff to a more appropriate forum. ***Edited by andym
07/02/2012 2:26 pm
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4989 Posts |
I think we should celebrate. There is no way Gold could have been mined fast enough to keep pace with U.S. economic growth. I suppose we could all be spending 1/1500'th ounce "gold certificates" but that would be a bit silly when fiat currency does the job just as well without some false promise that the scrip is redeemable for metal.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
561 Posts |
So it is better to have a piece of paper that is redeemable for nothing and is backed by the false promise of the full faith and credit of the US government?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1208 Posts |
100 years of tyranny... Yay. (Sarcasm)
And, yes, we could still have money based on value, as opposed to debt.
The value of the money would have stayed stable or gone up, instead of
a century of decline in value...
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
36724 Posts |
The Fed is what the founding fathers of this country warned against. I will celebrate when they are gone.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2734 Posts |
Many other countries went off the gold standard before the US did. It was argued they would drain our gold reserves by redeeming US dollars for gold. Ironically, foreign countries were the last entities that could exchange US Dollars for gold (the "gold window" Nixon closed in 1971). We could have solved the "drainage" problem above by closing the gold window in 1933, so that only US citizens on US soil could have redeemed our Dollars for gold. At that point, redemptions could have been made payable only in the form of gold bullion. The re-valuation of gold to $35/oz. at that time (in addition to its economic boost effect) would have removed gold coins from circulation, even if they remained legal tender and legal to own. Gold certificates would also have remained legal tender, but made redeemable only on a "$35 = one oz. gold bullion" basis (which I think we can all agree would have been much better than what actually happened). Bullion redemption could then have been restricted or phased out before the next upward price adjustment. The Treasury could have offered the remaining 1933 Double Eagles to collectors for $35 a piece.   Then we could have maintained something along the lines of the "modified gold standard" of 1933-1971, which worked rather well. Periodic upward adjustments in the official gold price would accommodate economic growth, while keeping inflation on a leash. Bullion-only valuation would allow for such controlled long-term inflation (gold coinage would have to be re-valued at every upward price step, and older coins would be removed from circulation when their bullion value exceeded their face value). Post WW-II economic growth would have pushed gold past the $100/oz. mark, and if my system were in place today, gold might be around $200/oz. Edited by DNA
07/02/2012 4:09 pm
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
51 Posts |
The value of gold hasn't increased as much as the amount that the value of our dollar has dropped. The value of our unbacked dollar has decreased more than 97% over the last 100 years. If the value of the dollar was stable, like it was for the 100 years prior into the 1800's, $200 per ounce might indeed be where gold should be at today.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
614 Posts |
Oh how I love Alt. History!
|
|
New Member
United States
23 Posts |
Our dollar continues to loose it's value. I will not be celebrating 100 years of a bad idea.
John
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
511 Posts |
Satan will celebrate a century of the Fed.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
13014 Posts |
Could this be next years "special" ASE reverse proof set? |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1064 Posts |
Do I detect a bit of irony in some of these posts?  Good thread! |
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
3692 Posts |
[I think you're detecting sarcasm, not irony. (Pardon me, but I'm like that, JackB.)]
And no, I will not celebrate. By the same token, it's hard to even bring it up in normal everyday conversation without sounding like a quack. Some people don't like being shaken out of their comatose sleep. Come to think of it, that's why the process was so incremental, so that one generation could be wiped out before they could complain about the next step. We have to teach our children about this in schools and out. Money should be in the hands of the people, to withdraw as they see fit, when they see fit. Right now there is a huge mismanagement and pillaging of resources, but I'm preaching to the choir.
On a sweet note, it has made rare coins even rarer (I think) due to the billions of coins pumped out each year, so that one low mintage is much scarcer by comparison. I could be wrong, though, it's been known to happen.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1208 Posts |
Libertad: You got that right. "Incrementalism" is the preferred method of government growth.
People don't get alarmed by 1000 small changes as opposed to 1 big change.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
592 Posts |
Precious metals are just as arbitrary. The only thing they have going for them is they're physical.
An ounce of silver is an ounce of silver no matter what. But an ounce of silver has no actual value until you get a unit to trade it for, like chickens or dollars.
The Fed is not an intrinsically bad idea, merely one option for establishing a functioning system under the flawed notion that all things must have "value" and be attainable through transaction.
So no, not going to celebrate the anniversary of the Fed. Wouldn't celebrate its demise either, nor would I have celebrated the founding of it. I am largely indifferent to the Fed and simply accept it as a part of my current circumstance vis a vis our transaction-based world.
Edited by SaintRidley
07/11/2012 01:42 am
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
13014 Posts |
Quote:
Precious metals are just as arbitrary. The only thing they have going for them is they're physical. The other thing would be theres a finite amount of them as opposed to the ability to print unlimited quantities and have massive inflation. Both have positives and negatives and either could be abused in the wrong hands or under poor leadership. Youd think in the feds hundred years of existence they would have realized having the same bills and coin values as when they formed is a terrible idea |
| |
Replies: 25 / Views: 3,108 |
Posted 07/02/2012 1:54 pm
