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.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (48948)	6/18/2006 2:02:24 PM
From: Jim S	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

I'm not aware of any country that uses "hard" money. Currencies are valued in respect to a basket of other currencies. For one thing, there isn't enough precious metal to fund any major economy, so backing a currency with a hard asset really isn't possible. FWIW, your 371.25 grains of silver is about .8486 ounces, worth roughly $8.57 at the Friday spot price. So long as a fiat currency is accepted for inter- and intra- national trade, it has value. The backing is really immaterial.

To: Solon who wrote (48948)	6/18/2006 3:32:32 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

"Is the Canadian dollar backed by gold or silver? Not anymore. Then the way you choose definitions, the Canadian gov't is as bankrupt as the US gov't. "Bankruptcy is a legal term. Are you aware of that?" Yes, but it is acceptable to use it outside of the legal meaning which is not uniform between countries. Someone is bankrupt (in the non legal sense) when they have little or no real assets. This is often used in the sense of moral assets but it is understood by most people when referencing an entity which has become destitute. Roosevelt declared the U.S. Government bankrupt in 1933 (Executive Orders 6073, 6102, 6111 and Executive Order 6260). You had best be rather careful of those non-legal definitions. By non-legal defintion, if I kill someone, I have committed murder. But suppose I killed them to prevent them from killing someone else? The legal definition takes account of that and says I did not commit murder. The "killing someone is murder" definition does not and says I am. It is like the common definition of mass; it is common belief that increasing the speed of an object close to that of light increases its mass. It does not; it increases its INERTIA; its mass remains unchanged. Article I Section 1- -Powers prohibited of States No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress. No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay. And playing lawyer again, the restriction here is on the STATES,; it is not on the federal government. Now the intent at the time of writing was to prevent anything but gold or silver from being used as money, but a loophole was left, through which our gov't (and yours) charged. Your argument is, pardon my bluntness, rather stupid in any case. Do you think current American doctors should practice medicine as their 18th century predecessors did? Do yours? The Federal Reserve can halt inflation any time it wants to by simply shutting down those printing presses. It therefore follows that both inflation and recession are fully under the control of the Federal Reserve. The common belief of economists now is that a bit of inflation is in fact less harmful to "the general good" than a bit of deflation. A lot of either is bad. It is also well understtood that infalation and deflation are at the control of the Fed. In fact, the Fed trumpets that power. Over time, that excess of printing has destroyed the value of that dollar you think you have. Eh? I was in your country recently. Your merchants took my worthless US dollars quite happily for their valuable goods and services. Now why was that? BTW, how does the value of the Canadian dollar compare to what it had in 1867? The Coinage Act of 1965 then superseded the Act of 1792. There is no problem with one act of Congress overriding another. Over time, that excess of printing has destroyed the value of that dollar you think you have. If you want to know by just how much, go out and try to purchase 371.25 grains of silver right now. Usually, the deterioration is gradual. Sometimes, it has to be obvious, such as the 1985 devaluation (done to halt the trade imbalance) which triggered the Japanese real-estate grab in this country. Which was near the cusp of one of its inflationary spirals and grossly overpaid, then largely sold the inflated real estate back to us for pennies on the dollar. Many politicians have attempted to reverse this process. John F. Kennedy issued an Executive Order 11110, requiring the Treasury Department to start printing and issuing silver certificates for the silver then remaining in the US Treasury. Kennedy decided that by returning to the constitution, which states that only Congress shall coin and regulate money, the soaring national debt could be reduced by not paying interest to the bankers of the Federal Reserve System, who print paper money then loan it to the government at interest. This was the reason he signed Executive Order 11110 which called for the issuance of $4,292,893,815 in United States Notes through the U.S. Treasury rather than the traditional Federal Reserve System." "Returniing to the Constitution"- -what an interesting phrase you use considering that you started bt claiming the Constitution had been trashed! Oh. By the way. It's OUR Constitution, not yours. Keep that in mind.