Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Discuss Year 2000 Issues -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rarebird who wrote (6552)	7/14/1999 9:10:00 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 9818

My response to your claim that the Gov't may take away its citizens Gold during this Y2K crisis is certainly something to take quite seriously as it was done before. Rarebird, Interesting point of view in comparing Locke and Hobbes. I may have to dust off the old college textbooks and review their positions. One perspective on the gold sales is that the US gov't already undertook the confiscation of gold back in the '30s and the recent sales serve the purpose of returning that gold to the people (I'm sure that's not their motive for selling it of course, but it is the result). But with regard to Locke it's an interesting argument to make, the sancitity of private property and money already in existence versus maintaining a viable economy that restores an individuals ability to earn and accumulate money or other assets. I think that anyone would be torn on guaranteeing property rights over the right to economic opportunity. When the constitution was ratified only landed property owners were accorded suffrage (the right to vote). It was assumed that only property owners had a major stake in the political and legal direction of the nation. But by later granting suffrage to non-property owners, and thus ensuring that their "right" to a job (pursuit of happiness) as being their "vested interest", in the nation has created a bit of conflict. It was evident in America's past that when wealth was accumulated by the few during inflationary times (like the civil war), the legal system worked to preserve that wealth rather than creating the environment where it could be put to work to in order to get the economic system working again. History shows what happened when "hard money" policies were followed in the post-civil war period. Prices fell for a 30 year period and many people remained unemployed. The only people who prospered were those who already had accumulated wealth, stored it as cash or gold, and saw their purchasing power increase as pricing power plummeted. So my point is that, with universal suffrage, the govt being of the people, must now reflect the interests of that population, not just the landed aristocracy. And the interest of non-property owners is to ensure that the economic engine keeps working, even if that requires a bit of inflation or loose money policy from time to time. In fact, IMO, the highest priority of the gov't outside of national defense, is to maintain an economic environment where people can enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. After all, wealth means nothing if no one has a job that provides them the ability to accumulate it. Depriving people of the ability to accumulate wealth is the greatest confiscation of all. It certainly reigns above coercing those who have already accumulated it and are only looking for a place to store it in a non-productive manner to put it to work(ie: at risk). The confiscation of gold merely forced people who held it to place that wealth into other assets that provided the fuel to restore economic growth. Again, an interesting angle to approach the discussion from. Take care... Regards, Ron

To: Rarebird who wrote (6552)	7/14/1999 12:36:00 PM
From: bearcub	Respond to of 9818

rarebird and ken, i always become amused when any discussion againsts gold bullion accumulation pivots on the 30s historical confiscation. it seems that a group shudder ensues, causing nearly everyone to say, 'nope, i guess i better not do that either.' it would appear from my vantage point that using this confiscation argument strikes such fear in the hearts of those who wish to hold gold in its various forms, that they either suffer from a freeze in their imagination or else suffer from a very obsessive desire to 'obey the law' of the land. do we truly swallow that all law must be for our corporate good or else it would not have been passed by our elected officials? the gold that was confiscated in the 30s primarily came from the source of SAFETY DEPOSIT BOXES if one studies their american monetary history. holdings outside safety deposit boxes, was "required" (by passing a law") to be turned in, voluntarily. individual and corporate miners were required to sell it only to the government by means of a then in existence network of government assay offices scattered across this land. mining wasn't outlawed, just the government fixed the price of gold, and was the only approved buyer. i think it would be interesting if someone could search the net to determine just how many usa governmental assay offices are still in existence and where. it would also be interesting to note if there has been any 'stealthy increase' in their numbers over the last 2 to 5 years. personally i believe the use of the argument of confiscation is just so much FUD producing, that imagination is limited. so there are metal detectors. big deal. they can be fooled, just like gold's form can be changed into something besides familiar yellow. why don't we work communally on this forum to intelligently discuss camouflage and anti-confiscatory ideas so that there are more choices and not so much fear of a repeat of the 30s? i know when i asked around several months ago in our personal quest for imaginative answers, several workable ones were found. i'm sure this group can compile such a list and lessen the impact on society of anti- personal wealth in gold bullion.