100 Things to Have
knews4...@yahoo.com
Are you prepared?
Jack G.
> http://prepare4emergency.blogspot.com
>
> Are you prepared?
This is one of the most complete lists but like all the others omits
an important item.
Manual Meat Grinder #5.
You need to do a seach on manual meat grinders and you will be
suprised how it can be used as a vaulable survival tool.
Jack G.
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
Grinds poultry bones so your dogs can eat them without danger. Along
with skin, neck and Pope's Nose.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 Run, John, Run! 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
knews4...@yahoo.com
I think a gross of Bic lighters is in order too.
Good as cash tradeable....
A 55 gal drum of M+Ms would be worth it's weight in gold or bullets.
knews4...@yahoo.com
Small denomination silver coins are a must have too.
You can't use an oz of gold for a loaf of bread.
Silver dimes are worth 2.5 grams silver @ $18.00 / oz. is $1.58.
Probably twice that in "bad times."
Coins are easily recognizeable and hard to fake.
Frank Gilliland
in <7b9c83c6-3689-4a41...@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com>:
>On Dec 12, 5:19�pm, Winston_Smith <not_r...@bogus.net> wrote:
>> knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >On Dec 12, 3:31�pm, "Jack G." <jgran...@pioneernet.net> wrote:
>> >> On Dec 12, 12:10�pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> >> >http://prepare4emergency.blogspot.com
>>
>> >> > Are you prepared?
>>
>> >> This is one of the most complete lists but like all the others omits
>> >> an important item.
>>
>> >> Manual Meat Grinder #5.
>>
>> >> You need to do a seach on manual meat grinders and you will be
>> >> suprised how it can be used as a vaulable survival tool.
>>
>> >> Jack G.
>>
>> >I think a gross of Bic lighters is in order too.
>> >Good as cash tradeable....
>> >A 55 gal drum of M+Ms would be worth it's weight in gold or bullets.
>>
>> And some gold for the dentists fillings.
>
>Small denomination silver coins are a must have too.
>You can't use an oz of gold for a loaf of bread.
Unless that happens to be the price.
>Silver dimes are worth 2.5 grams silver @ $18.00 / oz. is $1.58.
>Probably twice that in "bad times."
I googled "bad times precious metals exchange rate" and didn't find
anything. Got a link?
>Coins are easily recognizeable and hard to fake.
Same with most foods, which (I think) have more nutritional value than
coins.
Stormin Mormon
"anything" during a crisis? I do not. Instead of silver
coins, I'd buy more food and bottled water.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
<knews4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7b9c83c6-3689-4a41...@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Stormin Mormon
ripped it to shreds, and it keeps showing up like venereal
disease and sniffly kids.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
<knews4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8ce4defa-e09c-4e41...@b36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Stormin Mormon
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Winston_Smith" <not_...@bogus.net> wrote in message
news:58g8i59dg65326k10...@4ax.com...
>A 55 gal drum of M+Ms would be worth it's weight in gold or
>bullets.
And some gold for the dentists fillings.
Stormin Mormon
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
<knews4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1c17c8f2-f121-4df2...@v15g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
Curly Surmudgeon
<cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Now you're making sense.
>
> --
> Christopher A. Young
> Learn more about Jesus
> www.lds.org
What, did you find another moron for your circle jerk?
Curly Surmudgeon
<cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:
> That damn list has been circulating for ages. Years ago, I ripped it to
> shreds, and it keeps showing up like venereal disease and sniffly kids.
>
> --
> Christopher A. Young
> Learn more about Jesus
> www.lds.org
At last it seems that you've found topics with which you have intimate
knowledge.
Hisler
Bullets and cigarettes are great for bartering. Bottles of Scotch can
be used to barter, disinfect, antibiotic, and even to fuel lanterns and
chain saws.
Lib Loo
"Curly Surmudgeon" <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote in message
news:hg1m40$vm4$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 21:48:33 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
> <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Now you're making sense.
>>
>> --
>> Christopher A. Young
>> Learn more about Jesus
>> www.lds.org
>
> What, did you find another moron for your circle jerk?
>
> --
> Regards, Curly
You ventured off-topic, homo boy.
Lib Loo
"Curly Surmudgeon" <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote in message
news:hg1m5c$vm4$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 21:47:48 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
> <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> That damn list has been circulating for ages. Years ago, I ripped it to
>> shreds, and it keeps showing up like venereal disease and sniffly kids.
>>
>> --
>> Christopher A. Young
>> Learn more about Jesus
>> www.lds.org
>
> At last it seems that you've found topics with which you have intimate
> knowledge.
>
Thanks for contributing nothing of interest to this fine on-topic thread.
Lib Loo
"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hg1koi$n7q$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
You can use them to buy a bottom posting newsreader, or for making bullets.
Frank Gilliland
wrote in <6lk8i59s3aou0cg6u...@4ax.com>:
>Frank Gilliland <w�renut@NOSPAM�cehouse.net> wrote:
>>On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 18:02:43 -0800 (PST), knews4...@yahoo.com wrote
>>>On Dec 12, 5:19�pm, Winston_Smith <not_r...@bogus.net> wrote:
>>>> knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>> >On Dec 12, 3:31�pm, "Jack G." <jgran...@pioneernet.net> wrote:
>>>> >> On Dec 12, 12:10�pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >> >http://prepare4emergency.blogspot.com
>>>> >> > Are you prepared?
>>>>
>>>> >> This is one of the most complete lists but like all the others omits
>>>> >> an important item.
>>>>
>>>> >> Manual Meat Grinder #5.
>>>>
>>>> >> You need to do a seach on manual meat grinders and you will be
>>>> >> suprised how it can be used as a vaulable survival tool.
>
>>>> >I think a gross of Bic lighters is in order too.
>>>> >Good as cash tradeable....
>>>> >A 55 gal drum of M+Ms would be worth it's weight in gold or bullets.
>>>>
>>>> And some gold for the dentists fillings.
>
>Small joke (that didn't work). All that candy is sure to drive up the
>need for gold fillings.
>
>>>Small denomination silver coins are a must have too.
>>>You can't use an oz of gold for a loaf of bread.
>>
>>Unless that happens to be the price.
>>
>>>Silver dimes are worth 2.5 grams silver @ $18.00 / oz. is $1.58.
>>>Probably twice that in "bad times."
>>
>>I googled "bad times precious metals exchange rate" and didn't find
>>anything. Got a link?
>
>I did do some surfing to find out how precious metal did during the
>Great Depression. Gold of course was not legal for Americans to own
>and the US government essentially price fixed it for the whole world.
>
>I went after silver. It, along with almost all commodities, were in
>the dumper with everything else.
>
>If one wants to consider a currency collapse, precious metals will
>have value. Same for a complete governmental collapse. Neither are
>at the top of the list - yet. If we just have a quiet collapse of the
>economy and then crawl back, I wouldn't think gold or silver are a
>good bet.
I might agree if not for the fact that the world today is a lot
different than it was 80 years ago. Lots more people to feed and not
much more farmland. An economic collapse, quiet or not, is going to
put some (a lot?) of farmland on legal hiatus. It's happening right
now for some farms because of last year's collapse. A -whole- lot more
would be going under if not for government subsidies and some bumper
crops this past year. Next year there's a good chance that things will
change. Perhaps the weather, the politics, the economics..... I don't
know. But something will change.
Another factor is the crazy popularity of DGCs. They are the primary
reason for the recent spike in gold price, buying up gold like mad in
order to corner as much of the market as possible. Which, BTW, has
inflated the price way higher than it would be otherwise, just like
the stock market was over-inflated before last year's collapse. So I
expect a similar collapse in the price of gold. Soon. Just as soon as
the DGC herd begins to thin (the small get eaten by the large), or the
government imposes regulations on the market (resulting in some DGCs
collapsing from lack of solvency (i.e, fraud) and others move offshore
to avoid regulations), or some gold-rich country like Dubai is forced
to dump a shitload of gold into the market in order to pay off its
debts. For that reason alone I wouldn't put any stock in the so-called
"intrinsic" value of gold.
History shows that when things get bad then people want food, not
gold. And those that have the food won't have any need of your gold.
>>>Coins are easily recognizeable and hard to fake.
>>
>>Same with most foods, which (I think) have more nutritional value than
>>coins.
>
>Silver may have some virtue as an antibiotic. A 99.99% pure coin
>would be a great electrode. I'm never been much into that but some
>folks swear by it.
Local action only, and there's better stuff that's cheaper and more
effective. Betadine, iodine, hydrogen peroxide, bleach, etc.
Oh, and some folks swear by Tarot cards, astrology, crystals, rabbit
feet, psychic healing, Jesus Christ and Santa Claus. That doesn't mean
they work. Except for Damitol.... now there's a placebo that WORKS!!!
IMO, the VERY BEST investment you can make is a remote piece of land
where you can grow your own food, and a couple good dogs and guns to
defend it.
knews4...@yahoo.com
<cayoung61**spambloc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Do you have an example of someone using silver coins to buy
> "anything" during a crisis? I do not. Instead of silver
> coins, I'd buy more food and bottled water.
>
> --
> Christopher A. Young
> Learn more about Jesus
> www.lds.org
> .
>
>
> news:7b9c83c6-3689-4a41...@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Small denomination silver coins are a must have too.
> You can't use an oz of gold for a loaf of bread.
> Silver dimes are worth 2.5 grams silver @ $18.00 / oz. is
> $1.58.
> Probably twice that in "bad times."
> Coins are easily recognizeable and hard to fake.
Just goes to show you anything can be "wampum."
A solar water distiller would be worth having.
Unless one is near a stream or other clean supply other means are
needed.
You can only trade for things you don't have with "extra" supplies you
do have.
pyotr filipivich
Gilliland <w�renut@NOSPAM�cehouse.net> reported Elvis on Sat, 12 Dec
2009 19:51:26 -0800 in misc.survivalism:
>
>
>Local action only, and there's better stuff that's cheaper and more
>effective. Betadine, iodine, hydrogen peroxide, bleach, etc.
>
>Oh, and some folks swear by Tarot cards, astrology, crystals, rabbit
>feet, psychic healing, Jesus Christ and Santa Claus. That doesn't mean
>they work. Except for Damitol.... now there's a placebo that WORKS!!!
>
>
>IMO, the VERY BEST investment you can make is a remote piece of land
>where you can grow your own food, and a couple good dogs and guns to
>defend it.
And the gold or silver (nuggets, bullion or coins) to pay the
taxes. B-)
pyotr
-
pyotr filipivich.
Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel,
you find out it's a Government Project to build more tunnel.
HH&C
And condoms.
TMTs two Moms will be selling themselves trying to keep him supplied
with Chicken McNuggetts and Video Games.
HH&C
> Frank Gilliland <wïrenut@NOSPAMïcehouse.net> wrote:
> >On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 18:02:43 -0800 (PST), knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote
> >>On Dec 12, 5:19 pm, Winston_Smith <not_r...@bogus.net> wrote:
> >>> knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>> >On Dec 12, 3:31 pm, "Jack G." <jgran...@pioneernet.net> wrote:
> >>> >> On Dec 12, 12:10 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >>> >> >http://prepare4emergency.blogspot.com
> >>> >> > Are you prepared?
>
> >>> >> This is one of the most complete lists but like all the others omits
> >>> >> an important item.
>
> >>> >> Manual Meat Grinder #5.
>
> >>> >> You need to do a seach on manual meat grinders and you will be
> >>> >> suprised how it can be used as a vaulable survival tool.
> >>> >Good as cash tradeable....
> >>> >A 55 gal drum of M+Ms would be worth it's weight in gold or bullets.
>
> >>> And some gold for the dentists fillings.
>
>
> >>Small denomination silver coins are a must have too.
> >>You can't use an oz of gold for a loaf of bread.
>
> >Unless that happens to be the price.
>
> >>Silver dimes are worth 2.5 grams silver @ $18.00 / oz. is $1.58.
> >>Probably twice that in "bad times."
>
> >I googled "bad times precious metals exchange rate" and didn't find
> >anything. Got a link?
>
> Great Depression. Gold of course was not legal for Americans to own
> and the US government essentially price fixed it for the whole world.
Huh? Who made it illegal for Americans to own gold?
> I went after silver. It, along with almost all commodities, were in
> the dumper with everything else.
>
> If one wants to consider a currency collapse, precious metals will
> have value. Same for a complete governmental collapse. Neither are
> at the top of the list - yet. If we just have a quiet collapse of the
> economy and then crawl back, I wouldn't think gold or silver are a
> good bet.
>
> >>Coins are easily recognizeable and hard to fake.
>
> >Same with most foods, which (I think) have more nutritional value than
> >coins.
>
> Silver may have some virtue as an antibiotic. A 99.99% pure coin
> would be a great electrode. I'm never been much into that but some
> folks swear by it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Jack G.
> I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that Frank
I thought this was going to be a serious survival thread but some of
the replies are sick.
I wanted to talk about making homemade soap but why waste my time.
I was also going to talk about people who grew their own food supply
this year.
They were able to trade with their neighbors to get a balanced supply.
They were also able to can and dry all their home grown food before
the middle of October. Then they planted their Green Manure crops for
the Winter.
HH&C
> Frank Gilliland <wïrenut@NOSPAMïcehouse.net> wrote:
> >>On Dec 12, 5:19 pm, Winston_Smith <not_r...@bogus.net> wrote:
> >>> knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>> >On Dec 12, 3:31 pm, "Jack G." <jgran...@pioneernet.net> wrote:
> >>> >> On Dec 12, 12:10 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >>> >> >http://prepare4emergency.blogspot.com
> >>> >> > Are you prepared?
>
> >>> >> This is one of the most complete lists but like all the others omits
> >>> >> an important item.
>
> >>> >> Manual Meat Grinder #5.
>
> >>> >> You need to do a seach on manual meat grinders and you will be
> >>> >> suprised how it can be used as a vaulable survival tool.
> >>> >Good as cash tradeable....
> >>> >A 55 gal drum of M+Ms would be worth it's weight in gold or bullets.
>
> >>> And some gold for the dentists fillings.
>
>
> >>Small denomination silver coins are a must have too.
> >>You can't use an oz of gold for a loaf of bread.
>
> >Unless that happens to be the price.
>
> >>Silver dimes are worth 2.5 grams silver @ $18.00 / oz. is $1.58.
> >>Probably twice that in "bad times."
>
> >I googled "bad times precious metals exchange rate" and didn't find
> >anything. Got a link?
>
> Great Depression. Gold of course was not legal for Americans to own
> and the US government essentially price fixed it for the whole world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102
> I went after silver. It, along with almost all commodities, were in
> the dumper with everything else.
>
> If one wants to consider a currency collapse, precious metals will
> have value. Same for a complete governmental collapse. Neither are
> at the top of the list - yet. If we just have a quiet collapse of the
> economy and then crawl back, I wouldn't think gold or silver are a
> good bet.
>
> >>Coins are easily recognizeable and hard to fake.
>
> >Same with most foods, which (I think) have more nutritional value than
> >coins.
>
Lib Loo
"HH&C" <hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d35e58e7-f783-44cc...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
TMT already has a manual meat grinder, her name is Rosy Palm.
knews4...@yahoo.com
> "anything" during a crisis? I do not. Instead of silver
> coins, I'd buy more food and bottled water.
>
Silver coins were still used during the depression.
> --
> Christopher A. Young
> Learn more about Jesus
> www.lds.org
> .
>
> <knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Dan
> Frank Gilliland <w�renut@NOSPAM�cehouse.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 18:02:43 -0800 (PST), knews4...@yahoo.com wrote
>>>> knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 12, 3:31 pm, "Jack G." <jgran...@pioneernet.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Dec 12, 12:10 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>> http://prepare4emergency.blogspot.com
>>>>>>> Are you prepared?
>>>>>> This is one of the most complete lists but like all the others omits
>>>>>> an important item.
>>>>>> Manual Meat Grinder #5.
>>>>>> You need to do a seach on manual meat grinders and you will be
>>>>>> suprised how it can be used as a vaulable survival tool.
>
>>>>> Good as cash tradeable....
>>>>> A 55 gal drum of M+Ms would be worth it's weight in gold or bullets.
>>>> And some gold for the dentists fillings.
>
>
>>> Small denomination silver coins are a must have too.
>>> You can't use an oz of gold for a loaf of bread.
>> Unless that happens to be the price.
>>
>>> Silver dimes are worth 2.5 grams silver @ $18.00 / oz. is $1.58.
>>> Probably twice that in "bad times."
>> I googled "bad times precious metals exchange rate" and didn't find
>> anything. Got a link?
>
> Great Depression. Gold of course was not legal for Americans to own
> and the US government essentially price fixed it for the whole world.
Yep, that's what being on the gold standard means...
> I went after silver. It, along with almost all commodities, were in
> the dumper with everything else.
D'oh!
> If one wants to consider a currency collapse, precious metals will
> have value.
Anything could have "value," depending entirely on how other people
value it... Silver coins might retain some usefulness, or they might
not. Wouldn't hurt to put a few away, but someone hoping somehow that a
strange person proffering small metallic discs will replace the ability
to be useful to the community is the height of fantasy.
> Same for a complete governmental collapse. Neither are
> at the top of the list - yet. If we just have a quiet collapse of the
> economy and then crawl back, I wouldn't think gold or silver are a
> good bet.
Not really a good bet (proper phrase noted) in any situation where trust
in the system has been destroyed.
>>> Coins are easily recognizeable and hard to fake.
>> Same with most foods, which (I think) have more nutritional value than
>> coins.
>
> Silver may have some virtue as an antibiotic. A 99.99% pure coin
> would be a great electrode. I'm never been much into that but some
> folks swear by it.
Silver is an antimicrobial for external applications, but very
inconvenient to use. Internal use is doubtful (though popular in India).
Dan
Dan
HH&C
> On Dec 13, 12:04 am, pyotr filipivich <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that Frank
> > Gilliland <wïrenut@NOSPAMïcehouse.net> reported Elvis on Sat, 12 Dec
> > 2009 19:51:26 -0800 in misc.survivalism:
>
> > >Local action only, and there's better stuff that's cheaper and more
> > >effective. Betadine, iodine, hydrogen peroxide, bleach, etc.
>
> > >Oh, and some folks swear by Tarot cards, astrology, crystals, rabbit
> > >feet, psychic healing, Jesus Christ and Santa Claus. That doesn't mean
> > >they work. Except for Damitol.... now there's a placebo that WORKS!!!
>
> > >IMO, the VERY BEST investment you can make is a remote piece of land
> > >where you can grow your own food, and a couple good dogs and guns to
> > >defend it.
>
> > And the gold or silver (nuggets, bullion or coins) to pay the
> > taxes. B-)
>
> > pyotr
>
> > -
> > pyotr filipivich.
> > Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel,
> > you find out it's a Government Project to build more tunnel.
>
> I thought this was going to be a serious survival thread but some of
> the replies are sick.
Soros's disinformation army has descended on misc.survivalism and
ruined it.
> I wanted to talk about making homemade soap but why waste my time.
>
> I was also going to talk about people who grew their own food supply
> this year.
>
> They were able to trade with their neighbors to get a balanced supply.
> They were also able to can and dry all their home grown food before
> the middle of October. Then they planted their Green Manure crops for
> the Winter.
I just picked up a copy of Mother Earth News.
So far a nice article on building a pole barn. I wonder if it would
be worth buying a sawmill to make the lumber.
Anyway, there are other groups that might not have been ruined yet,
such as frugal living or ...rural.
Good luck.
HH&C
> HH&C wrote:
> > On Dec 12, 9:43 pm, Winston_Smith <not_r...@bogus.net> wrote:
Stormin Mormon
after the barn is built. You can then continue to make
lumber for sale, and help others build barns. I vote yes on
the sawmill.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"HH&C" <hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8b14ca17-0076-49ef...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
None4U
"Lib Loo" <heez...@crazymother.kom> wrote in message
news:hg1nvv$ccn$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Can anyone post that list here. I cant print that list worth a crap from
his blog..
pyotr filipivich
<jgra...@pioneernet.net> reported Elvis on Sun, 13 Dec 2009 08:09:25
-0800 (PST) in misc.survivalism:
>
>> >IMO, the VERY BEST investment you can make is a remote piece of land
>> >where you can grow your own food, and a couple good dogs and guns to
>> >defend it.
>>
>> � � � � And the gold or silver (nuggets, bullion or coins) to pay the
>> taxes. �B-)
>>
>> pyotr
>>
>> -
>> pyotr filipivich.
>> Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel,
>> you find out it's a Government Project to build more tunnel.
>
>I thought this was going to be a serious survival thread but some of
>the replies are sick.
>
>I wanted to talk about making homemade soap but why waste my time.
>
>I was also going to talk about people who grew their own food supply
>this year.
>
>They were able to trade with their neighbors to get a balanced supply.
>They were also able to can and dry all their home grown food before
>the middle of October. Then they planted their Green Manure crops for
>the Winter.
A marvelous idea. But, ponder for a moment, how does one raise
enough food for the family while living in Suburbia?
Frank Gilliland
<jgra...@pioneernet.net> wrote in
<f49820bd-1db2-45c4...@v7g2000pro.googlegroups.com>:
>On Dec 13, 12:04�am, pyotr filipivich <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> I �missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that Frank
>> Gilliland <w�renut@NOSPAM�cehouse.net> �reported Elvis on Sat, 12 Dec
>> 2009 19:51:26 -0800 in misc.survivalism:
>>
>>
>>
>> >Local action only, and there's better stuff that's cheaper and more
>> >effective. Betadine, iodine, hydrogen peroxide, bleach, etc.
>>
>> >Oh, and some folks swear by Tarot cards, astrology, crystals, rabbit
>> >feet, psychic healing, Jesus Christ and Santa Claus. That doesn't mean
>> >they work. Except for Damitol.... now there's a placebo that WORKS!!!
>>
>> >IMO, the VERY BEST investment you can make is a remote piece of land
>> >where you can grow your own food, and a couple good dogs and guns to
>> >defend it.
>>
>> � � � � And the gold or silver (nuggets, bullion or coins) to pay the
>> taxes. �B-)
>>
>> pyotr
>>
>> -
>> pyotr filipivich.
>> Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel,
>> you find out it's a Government Project to build more tunnel.
>
>I thought this was going to be a serious survival thread but some of
>the replies are sick.
>
>I wanted to talk about making homemade soap but why waste my time.
Notwithstanding the fact that at least one person in this group
(alt.survival) doesn't consider soap to be important enough to put in
a bug-out bag, the process is so easy that there are a couple jillion
websites that cover the topic in endless detail.
>I was also going to talk about people who grew their own food supply
>this year.
>
>They were able to trade with their neighbors to get a balanced supply.
>They were also able to can and dry all their home grown food before
>the middle of October. Then they planted their Green Manure crops for
>the Winter.
Not much to tell that I haven't mentioned already. The ground froze
before I got a cover crop started. But that's no biggie since I don't
have any erosion, and I have way more compost than I'll need for next
year -- even after the neighbors got what they wanted. So I might be
digging up part of the front yard next spring.
BTW, I lost one of my pumpkins to mold last week. It got stuck in a
warm, dark corner and didn't get turned. And yesterday I found an
earwig munching on the bottom node of another but no damage. All the
rest (about 18 left after Thanksgiving) are still fine. Storage temp
about 55*F average.
Frank Gilliland
<ph...@mindspring.com> wrote in
<rchbi5dgvnbs8go2f...@4ax.com>:
>I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that "Jack G."
><jgra...@pioneernet.net> reported Elvis on Sun, 13 Dec 2009 08:09:25
>-0800 (PST) in misc.survivalism:
>>
>>> >IMO, the VERY BEST investment you can make is a remote piece of land
>>> >where you can grow your own food, and a couple good dogs and guns to
>>> >defend it.
>>>
>>> � � � � And the gold or silver (nuggets, bullion or coins) to pay the
>>> taxes. �B-)
>>>
>>> pyotr
>>>
>>> -
>>> pyotr filipivich.
>>> Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel,
>>> you find out it's a Government Project to build more tunnel.
>>
>>I thought this was going to be a serious survival thread but some of
>>the replies are sick.
>>
>>I wanted to talk about making homemade soap but why waste my time.
>>
>>I was also going to talk about people who grew their own food supply
>>this year.
>>
>>They were able to trade with their neighbors to get a balanced supply.
>>They were also able to can and dry all their home grown food before
>>the middle of October. Then they planted their Green Manure crops for
>>the Winter.
>
> A marvelous idea. But, ponder for a moment, how does one raise
>enough food for the family while living in Suburbia?
Grow herbs and trade them. Right now, dried and bottled herbs are
plenty expensive in the stores; fresh herbs go for a premium price.
Even in a poor economy, people like some taste to their food. Fresh
oregano, dill, basil, rosemary, sage and any of the mints (especially
lemon balm) are good choices. Medicinal herbs are also primo garden
products. Just a couple hundred square feed of opium poppies, lobelia,
garlic and ginger might just trade for a years worth of food. Add some
hops growing on the fence and you could set up your own herbal
pharmacy. In a crunch there will also be a need for foods with very
high levels of vitamin C and calcium. And, of course, tobacco.
With careful planning of the garden and use of intensive gardening
practices you might even be able to rake in a tidy profit in a -good-
economy!
knews4...@yahoo.com
> "Lib Loo" <heezb...@crazymother.kom> wrote in message
>
> news:hg1nvv$ccn$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Curly Surmudgeon" <CurlySurmudg...@live.com> wrote in message
> >news:hg1m5c$vm4$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 21:47:48 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
> >> <cayoung61**spambloc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> That damn list has been circulating for ages. Years ago, I ripped it to
> >>> shreds, and it keeps showing up like venereal disease and sniffly kids.
>
> >>> --
> >>> Christopher A. Young
> >>> Learn more about Jesus
> >>> www.lds.org
>
> >> At last it seems that you've found topics with which you have intimate
> >> knowledge.
>
> > Thanks for contributing nothing of interest to this fine on-topic thread.
>
> Can anyone post that list here. I cant print that list worth a crap from
>
> - Show quoted text -
Are you kidding?
You couldn't copy and past it here or in a document?
Geeeez.....
100 Things You Will Wish You had Stored:
1. Generators
2. Water Filters/Purifiers
3. Portable Toilets
4. Seasoned Firewood. Wood takes about 6 - 12 months to become dried,
for home uses.
5. Lamp Oil, Wicks, Lamps (First Choice: Buy CLEAR oil. If scarce,
stockpile ANY!)
6. Coleman Fuel. Impossible to stockpile too much.
7. Guns, Ammunition, Pepper Spray, Knives, Clubs, Bats & Slingshots.
8. Hand-can openers, & hand egg beaters, whisks.
9. Honey/Syrups/white, brown sugar
10. Rice - Beans - Wheat
11. Vegetable Oil (for cooking) Without it food burns/must be boiled
etc.,)
12. Charcoal, Lighter Fluid (Will become scarce suddenly)
13. Water Containers (Urgent Item to obtain.) Any size. Small: HARD
CLEAR PLASTIC ONLY - note - food grade if for drinking.
16. Propane Cylinders (Urgent: Definite shortages will occur.)
17. Survival Guide Book.
18. Mantles: Aladdin, Coleman, etc. (Without this item, longer-term
lighting is difficult.)
19. Baby Supplies: Diapers/formula. ointments/aspirin, etc.
20. Washboards, Mop Bucket w/wringer (for Laundry)
21. Cookstoves (Propane, Coleman & Kerosene)
22. Vitamins
23. Propane Cylinder Handle-Holder (Urgent: Small canister use is
dangerous without this item)
24. Feminine Hygiene/Haircare/Skin products.
25. Thermal underwear (Tops & Bottoms)
26. Bow saws, axes and hatchets, Wedges (also, honing oil)
27. Aluminum Foil Reg. & Heavy Duty (Great Cooking and Barter Item)
28. Gasoline Containers (Plastic & Metal)
29. Garbage Bags (Impossible To Have Too Many).
30. Toilet Paper, Kleenex, Paper Towels
31. Milk - Powdered & Condensed (Shake Liquid every 3 to 4 months)
32. Garden Seeds (No n-Hybrid) (A MUST)
33. Clothes pins/line/hangers (A MUST)
34. Coleman's Pump Repair Kit
35. Tuna Fish (in oil)
36. Fire Extinguishers (or..large box of Baking Soda in every room)
37. First aid kits
38. Batteries (all sizes...buy furthest-out for Expiration Dates)
39. Garlic, spices & vinegar, baking supplies
40. Big Dogs (and plenty of dog food)
41. Flour, yeast & salt
42. Matches. {"Strike Anywhere" preferred.) Boxed, wooden matches will
go first
43. Writing paper/pads/pencils, solar calculators
44. Insulated ice chests (good for keeping items from freezing in
Wintertime.)
45. Workboots, belts, Levis & durable shirts
46. Flashlights/LIGHTSTICKS & torches, "No. 76 Dietz" Lanterns
47. Journals, Diaries & Scrapbooks (jot down ideas, feelings,
experience; Historic Times)
48. Garbage cans Plastic (great for storage, water, transporting - if
with wheels)
49. Men's Hygiene: Shampoo, Toothbrush/paste, Mouthwash/floss, nail
clippers, etc
50. Cast iron cookware (sturdy, efficient)
51. Fishing supplies/tools
52. Mosquito coils/repellent, sprays/creams
53. Duct Tape
54. Tarps/stakes/twine/nails/rope/spikes
55. Candles
56. Laundry Detergent (liquid)
57. Backpacks, Duffel Bags
58. Garden tools & supplies
59. Scissors, fabrics & sewing supplies
60. Canned Fruits, Veggies, Soups, stews, etc.
61. Bleach (plain, NOT scented: 4 to 6% sodium hypochlorite)
62. Canning supplies, (Jars/lids/wax)
63. Knives & Sharpening tools: files, stones, steel
64. Bicycles...Tires/tubes/pumps/chains, etc
65. Sleeping Bags & blankets/pillows/mats
66. Carbon Monoxide Alarm (battery powered)
67. Board Games, Cards, Dice
68. d-con Rat poison, MOUSE PRUFE II, Roach Killer
69. Mousetraps, Ant traps & cockroach magnets
70. Paper plates/cups/utensils (stock up, folks)
71. Baby wipes, oils, waterless & Antibacterial soap (sav es a lot of
water)
72. Rain gear, rubberized boots, etc.
73. Shaving supplies (razors & creams, talc, after shave)
74. Hand pumps & siphons (for water and for fuels)
75. Soysauce, vinegar, bullions/gravy/soupbase
76. Reading glasses
77. Chocolate/Cocoa/Tang/Punch (water enhancers)
78. "Survival-in-a-Can"
79. Woolen clothing, scarves/ear-muffs/mittens
80. Boy Scout Handbook, / also Leaders Catalog
81. Roll-on Window Insulation Kit (MANCO)
82. Graham crackers, saltines, pretzels, Trail mix/Jerky
83. Popcorn, Peanut Butter, Nuts
84. Socks, Underwear, T-shirts, etc. (extras)
85. Lumber (all types)
86. Wagons & carts (for transport to and from)
87. Cots & Inflatable mattress's
88. Gloves: Work/warming/gardening, etc.
89. Lantern Hangers
90. Screen Patches, glue, nails, screws,, nuts & bolts
91. Teas
92. Coffee
93. Cigarettes
94. Wine/Liquors (for bribes, medicinal, etc,)
95. Paraffin wax
96. Glue, nails, nuts, bolts, screws, etc.
97. Chewing gum/candies
98. Atomizers (for cooling/bathing)
99. Hats &
100. cotton neckerchiefs
Karsten Kruse
> Can anyone post that list here. I cant print that list worth a crap from
> his blog..
There you go:
1. Generators
2. Water Filters/Purifiers
3. Portable Toilets
9. Honey/Syrups/white, brown sugar
17. Survival Guide Book.
22. Vitamins
24. Feminine Hygiene/Haircare/Skin products.
37. First aid kits
51. Fishing supplies/tools
52. Mosquito coils/repellent, sprays/creams
53. Duct Tape
54. Tarps/stakes/twine/nails/rope/spikes
55. Candles
56. Laundry Detergent (liquid)
57. Backpacks, Duffel Bags
62. Canning supplies, (Jars/lids/wax)
64. Bicycles...Tires/tubes/pumps/chains, etc
75. Soysauce, vinegar, bullions/gravy/soupbase
76. Reading glasses
77. Chocolate/Cocoa/Tang/Punch (water enhancers)
78. "Survival-in-a-Can"
79. Woolen clothing, scarves/ear-muffs/mittens
85. Lumber (all types)
88. Gloves: Work/warming/gardening, etc.
89. Lantern Hangers
91. Teas
92. Coffee
93. Cigarettes
95. Paraffin wax
97. Chewing gum/candies
98. Atomizers (for cooling/bathing)
And that's the end of that.
Karsten
--
() My homepage is http://www.tecneeq.de/ and your homepage sucksￜ!
<\/>
_/\_ ￜ) Unless it has animated gifs from 1996, then it rocks!
pyotr filipivich
2009 23:34:10 -0800 in misc.survivalism:
>On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 20:58:39 -0800, pyotr filipivich
><ph...@mindspring.com> wrote in
><rchbi5dgvnbs8go2f...@4ax.com>:
>>I missed the Staff Meeting but the Minutes record that "Jack G."
>><jgra...@pioneernet.net> reported Elvis on Sun, 13 Dec 2009 08:09:25
>>-0800 (PST) in misc.survivalism:
>>>> >IMO, the VERY BEST investment you can make is a remote piece of land
>>>> >where you can grow your own food, and a couple good dogs and guns to
>>>> >defend it.
>>>>
>>>> � � � � And the gold or silver (nuggets, bullion or coins) to pay the
>>>> taxes. �B-)
>>>
>>>the replies are sick.
>>>
>>>I wanted to talk about making homemade soap but why waste my time.
>>>
>>>I was also going to talk about people who grew their own food supply
>>>this year.
>>>
>>>They were able to trade with their neighbors to get a balanced supply.
>>>They were also able to can and dry all their home grown food before
>>>the middle of October. Then they planted their Green Manure crops for
>>>the Winter.
>>
>> A marvelous idea. But, ponder for a moment, how does one raise
>>enough food for the family while living in Suburbia?
>
>
>Grow herbs and trade them. Right now, dried and bottled herbs are
>plenty expensive in the stores; fresh herbs go for a premium price.
>Even in a poor economy, people like some taste to their food. Fresh
>oregano, dill, basil, rosemary, sage and any of the mints (especially
>lemon balm) are good choices. Medicinal herbs are also primo garden
>products. Just a couple hundred square feed of opium poppies, lobelia,
>garlic and ginger might just trade for a years worth of food. Add some
>hops growing on the fence and you could set up your own herbal
>pharmacy. In a crunch there will also be a need for foods with very
>high levels of vitamin C and calcium. And, of course, tobacco.
>
>With careful planning of the garden and use of intensive gardening
>practices you might even be able to rake in a tidy profit in a -good-
>economy!
Ah, so I'm going to trade my herbs with those who have planted
their garden with ...herbs?
Actually, I do know how to raise food in suburbia. And it is very
intensive, raised beds, double cropping and 'dwarf' species. But I
also have this problem of wild life, and neighbors.
toodles
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
> "HH&C" <hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Dec 12, 9:43 pm, Winston_Smith <not_r...@bogus.net> wrote:
>
>>> I did do some surfing to find out how precious metal did during the
>>> Great Depression. Gold of course was not legal for Americans to own
>>> and the US government essentially price fixed it for the whole world.
>>
>>Huh? Who made it illegal for Americans to own gold?
>
> Why do I feel like I'm being baited.
Because you're responding to a cockroach... Sheesh, you're a smart guy,
why let yourself get sucked into the cesspool?
> FDR by executive order. Terms and conditions of course.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102 Executive Order 6102
> is an Executive Order signed on April 5, 1933 by U.S. President Franklin
> D. Roosevelt "forbidding the Hoarding of Gold Coin, Gold Bullion, and
> Gold Certificates" by U.S. citizens.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 Run, Sarah, Run! 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Karsten Kruse
> Actually, I do know how to raise food in suburbia. And it is very
> intensive, raised beds, double cropping and 'dwarf' species. But I
> also have this problem of wild life, and neighbors.
Shoot the wildlife, eat the neighbors. Or something like that.
Karsten
--
() My homepage is http://www.tecneeq.de/ and your homepage sucks�!
<\/>
_/\_ �) Unless it has animated gifs from 1996, then it rocks!
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
> eat the neighbors
Does Jeri Ryan live nearby?
HH&C
> "HH&C" <hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 12, 9:43 pm, Winston_Smith <not_r...@bogus.net> wrote:
> >> I did do some surfing to find out how precious metal did during the
> >> Great Depression. Gold of course was not legal for Americans to own
> >> and the US government essentially price fixed it for the whole world.
>
> >Huh? Who made it illegal for Americans to own gold?
>
> and conditions of course.
Observer tell me otherwise. Harps on it again and again.
I'm supposed to prove why FDR didn't do it.
Now I'm (supposedly) a bad guy for not proving that FDR did't do
something that he did do.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102
> Executive Order 6102 is an Executive Order signed on April 5, 1933 by
> U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt "forbidding the Hoarding of Gold
> Coin, Gold Bullion, and Gold Certificates" by U.S. citizens.
I know!
Who wants to bet that Curly chimes in and says something bad about me,
too?
HH&C
wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 19:46:55 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_r...@bogus.net>
> wrote:
>
> > "HH&C" <hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>On Dec 12, 9:43 pm, Winston_Smith <not_r...@bogus.net> wrote:
>
> >>> I did do some surfing to find out how precious metal did during the
> >>> Great Depression. Gold of course was not legal for Americans to own
> >>> and the US government essentially price fixed it for the whole world.
>
> >>Huh? Who made it illegal for Americans to own gold?
>
> > Why do I feel like I'm being baited.
>
> Because you're responding to a cockroach... Sheesh, you're a smart guy,
> why let yourself get sucked into the cesspool?
Bingo!
I know what Curly is going to do before Curly knows what he is going
to do.
Lib Loo
"Curly Surmudgeon" <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote in message
news:hg71tk$69m$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 19:46:55 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_...@bogus.net>
> wrote:
>
>> "HH&C" <hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Dec 12, 9:43 pm, Winston_Smith <not_r...@bogus.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> I did do some surfing to find out how precious metal did during the
>>>> Great Depression. Gold of course was not legal for Americans to own
>>>> and the US government essentially price fixed it for the whole world.
>>>
>>>Huh? Who made it illegal for Americans to own gold?
>>
>> Why do I feel like I'm being baited.
>
> Because you're responding to a cockroach... Sheesh, you're a smart guy,
> why let yourself get sucked into the cesspool?
Girly, you *ARE* the cockroach!
knews4...@yahoo.com
> http://prepare4emergency.blogspot.com
>
> Are you prepared?
Then there is this.
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20091215.html
None4U
<knews4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:35875405-d6cb-40c6...@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Nope , pc usage isnt on my list of survival skills. And I stayed off of
PCs until DOS was dead. That was long after newsgroups died.
Stormin Mormon
kid?
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"None4U" <nos...@nospam.none> wrote in message
news:LvOdnTXHQNLr8LXW...@centurytel.net...
> >> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 21:47:48 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
> >> <cayoung61**spambloc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> That damn list has been circulating for ages. Years
> >>> ago, I ripped it
> >>> to
> >>> shreds, and it keeps showing up like venereal disease
> >>> and sniffly
> >>> kids.
>
> >>> --
> >>> Christopher A. Young
> >>> Learn more about Jesus
> >>> www.lds.org
>
Are you kidding?
Observer
<hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 14, 9:46 pm, Winston_Smith <not_r...@bogus.net> wrote:
>> "HH&C" <hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Dec 12, 9:43 pm, Winston_Smith <not_r...@bogus.net> wrote:
>> >> I did do some surfing to find out how precious metal did during the
>> >> Great Depression. Gold of course was not legal for Americans to own
>> >> and the US government essentially price fixed it for the whole world.
>>
>> >Huh? Who made it illegal for Americans to own gold?
>>
>> Why do I feel like I'm being baited. FDR by executive order. Terms
>> and conditions of course.
>
>Observer tell me otherwise. Harps on it again and again.
>
>I'm supposed to prove why FDR didn't do it.
No. Asshat, you were to back up your claim that he made public
ownership of gold illegal.
>Now I'm (supposedly) a bad guy for not proving that FDR did't do
>something that he did do.
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102
>> Executive Order 6102 is an Executive Order signed on April 5, 1933 by
>> U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt "forbidding the Hoarding of Gold
>> Coin, Gold Bullion, and Gold Certificates" by U.S. citizens.
>
>I know!
>
>Who wants to bet that Curly chimes in and says something bad about me,
>too?
__
The last official act of any government is the looting of the nation.
HH&C
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:09:06 -0800 (PST), "HH&C"
>
>
>
>
>
> <hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 14, 9:46 pm, Winston_Smith <not_r...@bogus.net> wrote:
> >> "HH&C" <hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Dec 12, 9:43 pm, Winston_Smith <not_r...@bogus.net> wrote:
> >> >> I did do some surfing to find out how precious metal did during the
> >> >> Great Depression. Gold of course was not legal for Americans to own
> >> >> and the US government essentially price fixed it for the whole world.
>
> >> >Huh? Who made it illegal for Americans to own gold?
>
> >> Why do I feel like I'm being baited. FDR by executive order. Terms
> >> and conditions of course.
>
> >Observer tell me otherwise. Harps on it again and again.
>
> >I'm supposed to prove why FDR didn't do it.
>
> No. Asshat, you were to back up your claim that he made public
> ownership of gold illegal.
Dude, sorry I sat on your hat. It was so small that I didn't see it.
Must have been made for a pin head.
> >Now I'm (supposedly) a bad guy for not proving that FDR did't do
> >something that he did do.
>
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102
> >> Executive Order 6102 is an Executive Order signed on April 5, 1933 by
> >> U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt "forbidding the Hoarding of Gold
> >> Coin, Gold Bullion, and Gold Certificates" by U.S. citizens.
>
> >I know!
>
> >Who wants to bet that Curly chimes in and says something bad about me,
> >too?
>
> __
>
> The last official act of any government is the looting of the nation.- Hide quoted text -
Observer
<hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 16, 7:37 pm, Observer <noone@nowhere> wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:09:06 -0800 (PST), "HH&C"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Dec 14, 9:46 pm, Winston_Smith <not_r...@bogus.net> wrote:
>> >> "HH&C" <hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >On Dec 12, 9:43 pm, Winston_Smith <not_r...@bogus.net> wrote:
>> >> >> I did do some surfing to find out how precious metal did during the
>> >> >> Great Depression. Gold of course was not legal for Americans to own
>> >> >> and the US government essentially price fixed it for the whole world.
>>
>> >> >Huh? Who made it illegal for Americans to own gold?
>>
>> >> Why do I feel like I'm being baited. FDR by executive order. Terms
>> >> and conditions of course.
>>
>> >Observer tell me otherwise. Harps on it again and again.
>>
>> >I'm supposed to prove why FDR didn't do it.
>>
>> No. Asshat, you were to back up your claim that he made public
>> ownership of gold illegal.
>
>Dude, sorry I sat on your hat. It was so small that I didn't see it.
>Must have been made for a pin head.
Still back peddling, eh? BTW, that hat looks good on you. Probably
way too loose, but what the hell.
None4U
"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hgaocd$tcv$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> So, None. Are you venereal disease, or are you a sniffly
> kid?
>
Retief
>Winston_Smith wrote:
>> Frank "Francis the Talkin Mule" Gilliland <w�renut@NOSPAM�cehouse.net> wrote:
>> I did do some surfing to find out how precious metal did during the
>> Great Depression. Gold of course was not legal for Americans to own
>> and the US government essentially price fixed it for the whole world.
That's because Francis the Talking Mule is incompetent. The competent
and interested reader can Google the phrase: "worthless as a
continental"
>Yep, that's what being on the gold standard means...
Doofus, the country was established under a gold standard, that's why
Congress was granted powers such as: "To coin Money, regulate the
Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights
and Measures;"
And states were prohibited to: "make any Thing but gold and silver
Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;"
FDR outlawed possession of the only thing which was permitted as a
legal tender in payment of debt.
Retief
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Retief
>Bullets and cigarettes are great for bartering. Bottles of Scotch can
>be used to barter, disinfect, antibiotic, and even to fuel lanterns and
>chain saws.
My mother noted that many years ago, her aunt had given her a metal
lock-box in which to keep her silk stockings (as there was a time when
they were highly sought after).
Retief
Strabo
By circumventing this Constitutional obligation FDR imposed a fiat
money system which placed all users of the federal dollar in perpetual
debt and set the stage for massive inflationary spending by Congress.
We are now experiencing the predictable results.
Retief
wrote:
>By circumventing this Constitutional obligation FDR imposed a fiat
>money system which placed all users of the federal dollar in perpetual
>debt and set the stage for massive inflationary spending by Congress.
>
>We are now experiencing the predictable results.
Exactly... And we can expect our unfunded paper to be every bit as
"stable" as the Continental dollar was...
Retief
HH&C
> >> I did do some surfing to find out how precious metal did during the
> >> Great Depression. Gold of course was not legal for Americans to own
> >> and the US government essentially price fixed it for the whole world.
>
> That's because Francis the Talking Mule is incompetent. The competent
> and interested reader can Google the phrase: "worthless as a
> continental"
>
> >Yep, that's what being on the gold standard means...
>
> Doofus, the country was established under a gold standard, that's why
> Congress was granted powers such as: "To coin Money, regulate the
> Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights
> and Measures;"
>
> And states were prohibited to: "make any Thing but gold and silver
> Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;"
>
> FDR outlawed possession of the only thing which was permitted as a
> legal tender in payment of debt.
>
> Retief
Yes, I know.
I posted elsewhere that FDR made it illegal to own gold.
Observer is calling me a liar because people were actually allowed to
keep their gold wedding bands and gold teeth.
Dan
> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 12:03:22 -0800, Dan <dnad...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Winston_Smith wrote:
>>> Frank "Francis the Talkin Mule" Gilliland <w�renut@NOSPAM�cehouse.net> wrote:
>>> I did do some surfing to find out how precious metal did during the
>>> Great Depression. Gold of course was not legal for Americans to own
>>> and the US government essentially price fixed it for the whole world.
>
> That's because Francis the Talking Mule is incompetent. The competent
> and interested reader can Google the phrase: "worthless as a
> continental"
>
>> Yep, that's what being on the gold standard means...
>
> Doofus, the country was established under a gold standard,
With the government fixing the price of gold, d'uh.
> that's why
> Congress was granted powers such as: "To coin Money,
Which they have continued to do to this day, both paper and metallic.
> regulate the
> Value thereof,
Yes.
> and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;"
>
> And states were prohibited to: "make any Thing but gold and silver
> Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;"
California has violated this provision more than once...
> FDR outlawed possession of the only thing which was permitted as a
> legal tender in payment of debt.
Well, no, he didn't... That statement is incorrect on so many levels...
Dan
Dan
> Retief wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 12:03:22 -0800, Dan <dnad...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Winston_Smith wrote:
>>>> Frank "Francis the Talkin Mule" Gilliland
>>>> <w�renut@NOSPAM�cehouse.net> wrote:
>>>> I did do some surfing to find out how precious metal did during the
>>>> Great Depression. Gold of course was not legal for Americans to own
>>>> and the US government essentially price fixed it for the whole world.
>>
>> That's because Francis the Talking Mule is incompetent. The competent
>> and interested reader can Google the phrase: "worthless as a
>> continental"
>>
>>> Yep, that's what being on the gold standard means...
>>
>> Doofus, the country was established under a gold standard, that's why
>> Congress was granted powers such as: "To coin Money, regulate the
>> Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights
>> and Measures;"
>>
>> And states were prohibited to: "make any Thing but gold and silver
>> Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;"
>>
>> FDR outlawed possession of the only thing which was permitted as a
>> legal tender in payment of debt.
>>
>> Retief
>>
>
> By circumventing this Constitutional obligation
Show us where FDR circumvented this Constitutional obligation. I'll wait.
> FDR imposed a fiat
> money system
Which existed long before he got into office...
Kind of like Clinton imposing things that had been done for decades...
> which placed all users of the federal dollar in perpetual
> debt and set the stage for massive inflationary spending by Congress.
Are you REALLY trying to claim that inflation started in 1932+???
Strabo, I think you have gone off the deep end.
> We are now experiencing the predictable results.
Like technology, common people owning houses, the world not speaking
Russian, and a bunch of other real world realities...
Sigh...
Dan
Dan
> On Jan 1, 9:40 pm, Retief <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 12:03:22 -0800, Dan <dnada...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Winston_Smith wrote:
>>>> I did do some surfing to find out how precious metal did during the
>>>> Great Depression. Gold of course was not legal for Americans to own
>>>> and the US government essentially price fixed it for the whole world.
>> That's because Francis the Talking Mule is incompetent. The competent
>> and interested reader can Google the phrase: "worthless as a
>> continental"
>>
>>> Yep, that's what being on the gold standard means...
>> Doofus, the country was established under a gold standard, that's why
>> Congress was granted powers such as: "To coin Money, regulate the
>> Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights
>> and Measures;"
>>
>> And states were prohibited to: "make any Thing but gold and silver
>> Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;"
>>
>> FDR outlawed possession of the only thing which was permitted as a
>> legal tender in payment of debt.
>>
>> Retief
>
> Yes, I know.
>
> I posted elsewhere that FDR made it illegal to own gold.
>
> Observer is calling me a liar because people were actually allowed to
> keep their gold wedding bands and gold teeth.
Oh, great, TWO ignoramuses supporting each others' fallacious claims...
Dan
Strabo
> On Jan 1, 9:40 pm, Retief <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 12:03:22 -0800, Dan <dnada...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Winston_Smith wrote:
>>>> I did do some surfing to find out how precious metal did during the
>>>> Great Depression. Gold of course was not legal for Americans to own
>>>> and the US government essentially price fixed it for the whole world.
>> That's because Francis the Talking Mule is incompetent. The competent
>> and interested reader can Google the phrase: "worthless as a
>> continental"
>>
>>> Yep, that's what being on the gold standard means...
>> Doofus, the country was established under a gold standard, that's why
>> Congress was granted powers such as: "To coin Money, regulate the
>> Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights
>> and Measures;"
>>
>> And states were prohibited to: "make any Thing but gold and silver
>> Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;"
>>
>> FDR outlawed possession of the only thing which was permitted as a
>> legal tender in payment of debt.
>>
>> Retief
>
> Yes, I know.
>
> I posted elsewhere that FDR made it illegal to own gold.
>
> Observer is calling me a liar because people were actually allowed to
> keep their gold wedding bands and gold teeth.
>
"Allowed to keep?"
Americans can do whatever they please as long as it's lawful.
Gold was not made illegal by FDR. Gold coins were recalled by the
Treasury. Gold became illegal to use as money. Gold jewelry, nuggets,
numismatic coins, ancient coins, dental gold, etc, were not illegal.
When the going gets rough the tough have to be specific.
Clearing up some other notable politically correct misunderstandings...
Alcohol was not made illegal under prohibition. The commercial
production, distribution and resale of spirits was made illegal.
When this prohibition was lifted you just needed a federal stamp to
manufacture, ship and resell.
Automatic firearms are not illegal. You just have to buy a federal
stamp to possess them.
Marijuana was not made illegal. You just had to buy a federal stamp
to possess it.
The lesson to draw from these misunderstandings...
Laws sometimes offend the Constitution.
Commercial not criminal law, dictates 90% of American activities.
For every law there must be a remedy.
The power to tax is the power to destroy.
Frank Gilliland
in <FzO%m.404$Mv3...@newsfe05.iad>:
The two-time college drop-out Charles Scripter (aka, Retief) tends to
make statements that are.... well, less than accurate. I noticed that
he couldn't even figure out who said what in this thread. It's because
he has a hot, throbbing woody for me. He's been that way for a couple
years, ever since I served him crow on a number of issues. He's been
stalking me off and on ever since. Argue with him and you, too, might
become the object of his special affections.
Retief
>>> Yep, that's what being on the gold standard means...
>>
>> Doofus, the country was established under a gold standard,
>
>With the government fixing the price of gold, d'uh.
>
>> that's why
>> Congress was granted powers such as: "To coin Money,
>
>Which they have continued to do to this day, both paper and metallic.
That's very interesting, Dan. Please explain how you "Coin" paper
money. We could look here:
http://www.answers.com/topic/coin
Nope, I don't see any printed paper listed there.
Since the 10th Amendment prohibits the exercise of powers not granted,
the printing of paper "money" is unlawful.
>> regulate the
>> Value thereof,
>
>Yes.
Boy, you catch on real fast Dan. You almost figured out that I wrote
the text that you quoted and agreed with.
>> and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;"
>>
>> And states were prohibited to: "make any Thing but gold and silver
>> Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;"
>
>California has violated this provision more than once...
Yes, as has the federal government.
>> FDR outlawed possession of the only thing which was permitted as a
>> legal tender in payment of debt.
>
>Well, no, he didn't... That statement is incorrect on so many levels...
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=14611&st=&st1=
"By virtue Of the authority vested in me ... I, Franklin D. Roosevelt,
President of the United States of America, do declare that said
national emergency still continues to exist and pursuant to said
section do hereby prohibit the hoarding of gold coin, gold bullion,
and gold certificates within the continental United States ..."
"Section 1. For the purposes of this regulation, the term "hoarding"
means the withdrawal and withholding of gold coin, gold bullion or
gold certificates from the recognized and customary channels of trade.
The term "person" means any individual, partnership, association or
corporation."
"Section 2. All persons are hereby required to deliver on or before
May 1, 1933, to a Federal Reserve Bank or a branch or agency thereof
or to any member bank of the Federal Reserve System all gold coin,
gold bullion and gold certificates now owned by them or coming into
their ownership on or before April 28, 1933, except the following:"
Oh, but I'm sure that Dan believes that a statement such as
"...prohibit the hoarding of gold coin, gold bullion...", and a
requirement that "All persons are hereby required to deliver on or
before May 1, 1933, to a Federal Reserve Bank or a branch or agency
thereof or to any member bank of the Federal Reserve System all gold
coin, gold bullion and gold certificates" ... is not outlawing the
private possession of gold coin and bullion.
I wonder what our totalitarian socialist friend Dan thinks that such
an act is?... Perhaps it's merely a gentle request, that will result
in no government sanctions (such as arrest, sending out men with guns,
fines, and jail time)?
Retief
Retief
<w�renut@NOSPAM�cehouse.net> wrote:
>make statements that are.... well, less than accurate. I noticed that
>he couldn't even figure out who said what in this thread. It's because
Poor Francis the Talking Mule... It spends an enormous amount of time
promoting its disinformation, and it becomes so unhappy when it gets
called on its numerous, ang almost universal failings and errors.
Indeed, it is quite apparent that Francis is an agent provocateur, who
real desire is to promote erroneous, and often dangerously erroneous,
information.
The wise reader will believe nothing Francis the Talking Mule claims,
without confirming from independent, reputable sources -- your life
and well-being may depend on it.
>he has a hot, throbbing woody for me. He's been that way for a couple
Actually Francis, it's probably Mr. Ed (your cousin, the talking
horse) who has a woody for your hungry ass.
>years, ever since I served him crow on a number of issues. He's been
Francis the Talking Mule believes that if it keeps repeating its lies,
that it might be able to make its lies pass as "truth"... But the
details of Francis' failings are to be found in virtually every post
it makes.
Now run along, Francis. We have no time for Mules and jackasses (yes
Francis, I'm talking about you).
Retief
Retief
wrote:
>"Allowed to keep?"
>
>Americans can do whatever they please as long as it's lawful.
Wait until it becomes unlawful to decline to purchase government
sponsored health insurance...
>Gold was not made illegal by FDR. Gold coins were recalled by the
>Treasury. Gold became illegal to use as money. Gold jewelry, nuggets,
>numismatic coins, ancient coins, dental gold, etc, were not illegal.
Actually, possession of most gold was made illegal:
"All persons are hereby required to deliver on or before May 1, 1933,
to a Federal Reserve Bank or a branch or agency thereof or to any
member bank of the Federal Reserve System all gold coin, gold bullion
and gold certificates now owned by them or coming into their ownership
on or before April 28, 1933, except the following:"
Now, for what lawful reason should a government outlaw possession of
gold bullion and coin? Or is your argument that possessors of bullion
and coin should have hammered them into nuggets and "jewelry" in order
to retain possession of their property?
Retief
Retief
>> By circumventing this Constitutional obligation
>
>Show us where FDR circumvented this Constitutional obligation. I'll wait.
By what method of metalworking, did FDR coin paper? Describe the
alloying and minting of these paper coins, of intrinisic value.
How much gold and silver was alloyed into the paper?
Show me the section of the Constitution that authorized FDR to "alloy"
and "coin" paper money, of no intrinsic value.
The prohibition against the States, denies the use of Federal Reserve
Notes in payment of debts.
>> FDR imposed a fiat
>> money system
>
>Which existed long before he got into office...
Prior to that, currency was backed by gold and silver (and thus was
arguably "equivalent" to gold and silver coin). Gold and silver
certificates were exchangable for gold and silver coin. One can
easily argue that the paper currency is fiat, as soon as it can no
longer be freely exchanged for the gold and silver coin that was
promised (yes, a gold and silver certificate is a promissary note)
We officially left the gold standard in 1971, and our paper currency
is now backed by the full FAITH and credit of the United States...
(which is to say, it is now backed by FAITH...so you'd better hope
others are believers like yourself...)
Retief
Dan
> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 13:14:43 -0800, Dan <dnad...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Yep, that's what being on the gold standard means...
>>> Doofus, the country was established under a gold standard,
>> With the government fixing the price of gold, d'uh.
>>
>>> that's why
>>> Congress was granted powers such as: "To coin Money,
>> Which they have continued to do to this day, both paper and metallic.
>
> That's very interesting, Dan. Please explain how you "Coin" paper
> money. We could look here:
"Coin" means to fashion into. Although many of the definitions refer to
metal (any metal...), not all of them are so restrictive.
> http://www.answers.com/topic/coin
>
> Nope, I don't see any printed paper listed there.
And? Are you claiming that site is all inclusive?
> Since the 10th Amendment prohibits the exercise of powers not granted,
> the printing of paper "money" is unlawful.
Nope.
>>> regulate the
>>> Value thereof,
>> Yes.
>
> Boy, you catch on real fast Dan. You almost figured out that I wrote
> the text that you quoted and agreed with.
Huh?
>>> and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;"
>>>
>>> And states were prohibited to: "make any Thing but gold and silver
>>> Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;"
>> California has violated this provision more than once...
>
> Yes, as has the federal government.
No, the Federal Government was granted that ability in the Constitution.
You quoted it yourself.
>>> FDR outlawed possession of the only thing which was permitted as a
>>> legal tender in payment of debt.
>> Well, no, he didn't... That statement is incorrect on so many levels...
>
> http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=14611&st=&st1=
>
> "By virtue Of the authority vested in me ... I, Franklin D. Roosevelt,
> President of the United States of America, do declare that said
> national emergency still continues to exist and pursuant to said
> section do hereby prohibit the hoarding of gold coin, gold bullion,
> and gold certificates within the continental United States ..."
No outlaw of the possession of gold there.
> "Section 1. For the purposes of this regulation, the term "hoarding"
> means the withdrawal and withholding of gold coin, gold bullion or
> gold certificates from the recognized and customary channels of trade.
> The term "person" means any individual, partnership, association or
> corporation."
No outlaw of the possession of gold there.
> "Section 2. All persons are hereby required to deliver on or before
> May 1, 1933, to a Federal Reserve Bank or a branch or agency thereof
> or to any member bank of the Federal Reserve System all gold coin,
> gold bullion and gold certificates now owned by them or coming into
> their ownership on or before April 28, 1933, except the following:"
No outlaw of the possession of gold there.
> Oh, but I'm sure that Dan believes that a statement such as
> "...prohibit the hoarding of gold coin, gold bullion...", and a
> requirement that "All persons are hereby required to deliver on or
> before May 1, 1933, to a Federal Reserve Bank or a branch or agency
> thereof or to any member bank of the Federal Reserve System all gold
> coin, gold bullion and gold certificates" ... is not outlawing the
> private possession of gold coin and bullion.
No outlaw of the possession of gold there. Hell, he didn't even outlaw
the private possession or use of gold coins (you DID cut the quote short
on purpose, I assume, since it goes on to disprove your assertion).
Section 2. All persons are hereby required to deliver on or before May
1, 1933, to a Federal Reserve bank or a branch or agency thereof or to
any member bank of the Federal Reserve System all gold coin, gold
bullion, and gold certificates now owned by them or coming into their
ownership on or before April 28, 1933, except the following:
(a) Such amount of gold as may be required for legitimate and customary
use in industry, profession or art within a reasonable time, including
gold prior to refining and stocks of gold in reasonable amounts for the
usual trade requirements of owners mining and refining such gold.
(b) Gold coin and gold certificates in an amount not exceeding in the
aggregate $100.00 belonging to any one person; and gold coins having
recognized special value to collectors of rare and unusual coins.
(c) Gold coin and bullion earmarked or held in trust for a recognized
foreign government or foreign central bank or the Bank for International
Settlements.
(d) Gold coin and bullion licensed for the other proper transactions
(not involving hoarding) including gold coin and gold bullion imported
for the re-export or held pending action on applications for export license.
> I wonder what our totalitarian socialist friend Dan
I am none of the above: totalitarian, socialist, nor friend, DUDE. But,
then, that IS about as accurate as you ever DO get, isn't it...
> thinks that such
> an act is?... Perhaps it's merely a gentle request, that will result
> in no government sanctions (such as arrest, sending out men with guns,
> fines, and jail time)?
>
> Retief
Please provide evidence (a quote. perhaps, not taken out of context or
clipped) that FDR outlawed the private possession of gold coins, let
alone "gold."
I'll wait (but I for sure am NOT holding my breath).
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Tick
Ding.
Time's up. Nothing, eh? Thought not.
Next?
Dan
Dan
You should know that your position is untenable when you have to
misquote (and knowingly leaving out part of a quote that would destroy
your position IS misquoting) to even support it.
Sad little boy.
Dan
Retief
>>>> that's why
>>>> Congress was granted powers such as: "To coin Money,
>>> Which they have continued to do to this day, both paper and metallic.
>>
>> That's very interesting, Dan. Please explain how you "Coin" paper
>> money. We could look here:
>
>"Coin" means to fashion into. Although many of the definitions refer to
>metal (any metal...), not all of them are so restrictive.
James Madison, Federalist 42 (that would be Author of the
Constitution, James Madison, to you Dan...):
"The authority of the existing Congress is restrained to the
regulation of coin struck by their own authority, or that of the
respective States."
"Struck"?? Gosh, it sounds like James Madison meant far more than
"fashion into".
James Madison, Federalist 44:
"The right of coining money, which is here taken from the States, was
left in their hands by the Confederation, as a concurrent right with
that of Congress, under an exception in favor of the exclusive right
of Congress to regulate the alloy and value."
Again Dan, explain how you have alloyed this paper coin, which you
have STRUCK at the mint.
>> http://www.answers.com/topic/coin
>>
>> Nope, I don't see any printed paper listed there.
>
>And? Are you claiming that site is all inclusive?
I suspect that James Madison, author of the Constitution, knows far
more about the meaning of the Constitution than you do, or ever will.
It seems that Madison also "forgot" to mention your printed currency.
>> Since the 10th Amendment prohibits the exercise of powers not granted,
>> the printing of paper "money" is unlawful.
>
>Nope.
Yup.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people."
The power to PRINT money was granted to none of the government
entities (State or federal).
>> Boy, you catch on real fast Dan. You almost figured out that I wrote
>> the text that you quoted and agreed with.
>
>Huh?
That's the most intelligent thing you've said all day.
>>>> and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;"
>>>>
>>>> And states were prohibited to: "make any Thing but gold and silver
>>>> Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;"
>>> California has violated this provision more than once...
>>
>> Yes, as has the federal government.
>
>No, the Federal Government was granted that ability in the Constitution.
> You quoted it yourself.
No, the federal government was granted no such authority.
>>>> FDR outlawed possession of the only thing which was permitted as a
>>>> legal tender in payment of debt.
>>> Well, no, he didn't... That statement is incorrect on so many levels...
>>
>> http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=14611&st=&st1=
>>
>> "By virtue Of the authority vested in me ... I, Franklin D. Roosevelt,
>> President of the United States of America, do declare that said
>> national emergency still continues to exist and pursuant to said
>> section do hereby prohibit the hoarding of gold coin, gold bullion,
>> and gold certificates within the continental United States ..."
>
>No outlaw of the possession of gold there.
Introductory statement,, doofus.
>> "Section 1. For the purposes of this regulation, the term "hoarding"
>> means the withdrawal and withholding of gold coin, gold bullion or
>> gold certificates from the recognized and customary channels of trade.
>> The term "person" means any individual, partnership, association or
>> corporation."
>
>No outlaw of the possession of gold there.
Definition of scope, doofus.
>> "Section 2. All persons are hereby required to deliver on or before
>> May 1, 1933, to a Federal Reserve Bank or a branch or agency thereof
>> or to any member bank of the Federal Reserve System all gold coin,
>> gold bullion and gold certificates now owned by them or coming into
>> their ownership on or before April 28, 1933, except the following:"
>
>No outlaw of the possession of gold there.
Dan believes a command to "deliver ... to any member bank of the
Federal Reserve System all gold coin, gold bullion and gold
certificates" does not constitute outlawing possession of gold coin,
and gold bullion.
Oh, I see, it was merely siezing of property without due process of
law (i.e. a trial by Jury).
Show me where my gold bullion and gold coin were exempted from this
command to deliver it to the Federal Reserve.
>> Oh, but I'm sure that Dan believes that a statement such as
>> "...prohibit the hoarding of gold coin, gold bullion...", and a
>> requirement that "All persons are hereby required to deliver on or
>> before May 1, 1933, to a Federal Reserve Bank or a branch or agency
>> thereof or to any member bank of the Federal Reserve System all gold
>> coin, gold bullion and gold certificates" ... is not outlawing the
>> private possession of gold coin and bullion.
>
>No outlaw of the possession of gold there. Hell, he didn't even outlaw
>the private possession or use of gold coins (you DID cut the quote short
>on purpose, I assume, since it goes on to disprove your assertion).
I truncated at the full colon which proceeds to a list. I assumed
that you were capable of reading, but I understand that you wish to
publicly admit that you are not capable of reading.
>> I wonder what our totalitarian socialist friend Dan
>
>I am none of the above: totalitarian, socialist, nor friend, DUDE. But,
>then, that IS about as accurate as you ever DO get, isn't it...
You are correct, you are not a friend (of me, nor the United States).
You are a totalitarian socialist, as you have demonstrated repeatedly
in these newsgroups.
>Please provide evidence (a quote. perhaps, not taken out of context or
>clipped) that FDR outlawed the private possession of gold coins, let
>alone "gold."
"All persons are hereby required to deliver ... to any member bank of
the Federal Reserve System all gold coin, gold bullion and gold
certificates..."
"Whoever willfully violates any provision of this Executive Order or
of these regulations or of any rule, regulation or license issued
thereunder may be fined not more than $10,000, or, if a natural
person, may be imprisoned for not more than ten years, or both; and
any officer, director, or agent of any corporation who knowingly
participates in any such violation may be punished by a like fine,
imprisonment, or both."
How nice of totalitarians like yourself to call for imprisonment of
individuals who have committed no crime (as you wish to claim that
willfull possession of gold coin and bullion were not outlawed).
Retief
Retief
>You should know that your position is untenable when you have to
>misquote (and knowingly leaving out part of a quote that would destroy
>your position IS misquoting) to even support it.
Poor Dan, he is so confused.
Cite the section of the executive order which exempted my personal
possession of any and all gold coin and gold bullion I may have (which
are held for for purposes other than industrial and artistic uses).
Be precise and to the point.
Retief
HH&C
Ooooh. That's gonna be tough. I don't think he can do it.
HH&C
> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 13:14:43 -0800, Dan <dnada...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Yep, that's what being on the gold standard means...
>
> >> Doofus, the country was established under a gold standard,
>
> >With the government fixing the price of gold, d'uh.
>
> >> that's why
> >> Congress was granted powers such as: "To coin Money,
>
> >Which they have continued to do to this day, both paper and metallic.
>
> That's very interesting, Dan. Please explain how you "Coin" paper
> money.
I know! I know!
You can compress the paper so much that it begins to resemble a wooden
nickel.
It would probably take 3 or 4 compressed dollar bills to make one
cardboard nickel.
Dan
> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 13:18:54 -0800, Dan <dnad...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> By circumventing this Constitutional obligation
>> Show us where FDR circumvented this Constitutional obligation. I'll wait.
>
> By what method of metalworking, did FDR coin paper?
> Describe the
> alloying and minting of these paper coins, of intrinisic value.
> How much gold and silver was alloyed into the paper?
>
> Show me the section of the Constitution that authorized FDR to "alloy"
> and "coin" paper money, of no intrinsic value.
Can't say where it says the Feds are allowed to "alloy" anything - that
is your claim.
The Constitution allows Congress to "coin money," it does not restrict
Congress to "minting coins" as you assert.
NOTHING has "intrinsic value." In a gold standard economy, gold is
worth what the government says it is worth (or what you can get in trade
for it), otherwise gold is worth what you can get in trade for it like
any other material.
> The prohibition against the States, denies the use of Federal Reserve
> Notes in payment of debts.
No, it does not.
>>> FDR imposed a fiat
>>> money system
>> Which existed long before he got into office...
>
> Prior to that, currency was backed by gold and silver (and thus was
> arguably "equivalent" to gold and silver coin).
Sometimes.
> Gold and silver
> certificates were exchangable for gold and silver coin.
True. Other currencies, paper and other, are/were not. Nothing in the
Constitution makes any such requirement.
> One can
> easily argue that the paper currency is fiat, as soon as it can no
> longer be freely exchanged for the gold and silver coin that was
> promised (yes, a gold and silver certificate is a promissary note)
One can easily argue that the moon is made of green cheese, also.
> We officially left the gold standard in 1971, and our paper currency
> is now backed by the full FAITH and credit of the United States...
> (which is to say, it is now backed by FAITH...so you'd better hope
> others are believers like yourself...)
Money has always been backed solely by FAITH. Did you have a point to make?
You really need to educate yourself on what money actually is. You
obviously have not thought much on the subject, and things are hardly
what you assume they are.
> Retief
Dan
Dan
Don't have to, I already reposted the section that denies his claims
(which he snipped, I can only assume for that exact reason).
He is now making a NEW claim. I'll accept that new claim as stated. It
is far from the original claim to which I objected.
Were he only so precise with his language earlier on, he could ahve
avoided looking silly.
Dan
Retief
>>> Cite the section of the executive order which exempted my personal
>>> possession of any and all gold coin and gold bullion I may have (which
>>> are held for for purposes other than industrial and artistic uses).
>>>
>>> Be precise and to the point.
>>>
>>> Retief
>>
>> Ooooh. That's gonna be tough. I don't think he can do it.
>
>Don't have to, I already reposted the section that denies his claims
>(which he snipped, I can only assume for that exact reason).
Thank you for your public admission that NONE of the sections excluded
a private individual from the prohibition of possessing considerable
quantities of gold coin, and gold bullion.
You reproduced the entire document for 2 reasons:
1) you are a clueless newbie to Usenet, and you don't understand that
providing a link to a document is adequate, as the interested reader
can follow the discussion there. (I can't wait to see Dan is a
discussion of Shakespeare, as he will feel obligated to reproduce the
entire text of everything Shakespeare ever wrote, in order to discuss
"to be, or not to be"...)
and
2) you have a desire to obfuscate the issue by not singling out the
section which provides the personal protection for ownership of gold
for monetary purposes, that you previously asserted -- we understand
that is because such protection does not exist within the document.
>He is now making a NEW claim. I'll accept that new claim as stated. It
>is far from the original claim to which I objected.
No, it isn't. You are claiming that ownership of gold for monetary
purposes was not prohibited, because artistic and industrial uses were
exempted.
But you now publicly admit that FDR did outlaw gold coin, denying the
States the ability to ""make any Thing but gold and silver
Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts".
Your admission or error is accepted.
Retief
Retief
>> Show me the section of the Constitution that authorized FDR to "alloy"
>> and "coin" paper money, of no intrinsic value.
>
>Can't say where it says the Feds are allowed to "alloy" anything - that
>is your claim.
"To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, ..."
If you had bothered to read Madison, you would learn that "regulate"
has the same meaning often used elsewhere in the Constitution, and has
nothing to do with "declare" or "order", but rather to "adjust to a
standard" -- so US coin was of a known alloy/purity, and thus of a
known value.
>The Constitution allows Congress to "coin money," it does not restrict
>Congress to "minting coins" as you assert.
James Madison, author of the Constitution, disagrees.
>NOTHING has "intrinsic value." In a gold standard economy, gold is
Bwahahaha... Perhaps this kids page will explain this basic
definition to you (yes Dan, you ARE dumber than a 5th grader):
http://www.usmint.gov/kids/campCoin/glossary.cfm?view=print
"intrinsic value (bullion value)
how much the metal in a coin is worth."
Yes Dan, gold does have an "intrinsic value". It also has "intrinsic
properties", for example electrical properties:
http://www.virginia.edu/bohr/mse209/chapter19.htm
(what does Dan think "intrinsic" means?)
>worth what the government says it is worth (or what you can get in trade
>for it), otherwise gold is worth what you can get in trade for it like
>any other material.
No, you are only partially correct. Gold is only worth what you can
trade for it -- and this may be driven by what industrial or artistic
uses you may find for it. Those are 2 reasons why gold continues to
be a valuable metal.
Likewise with silver, platinum, diamonds and other jewels...
>> The prohibition against the States, denies the use of Federal Reserve
>> Notes in payment of debts.
>
>No, it does not.
They are not permitted to tender anything but gold or silver in
payment of debts. This clause of the Constitution has not been
repealed.
>> Gold and silver
>> certificates were exchangable for gold and silver coin.
>
>True. Other currencies, paper and other, are/were not. Nothing in the
>Constitution makes any such requirement.
Paper was not authorized (and therefore forbidden).
The Pennsylvania Gazette, December 16, 1789:
" ... Since the Federal Constitution has removed all danger of our
having a paper tender our trade has advanced fifty percent, our
moneyed people can trust their cash abroad and have brought their coin
into circulation...."
The contemporaneous understanding was clearly different than Dan
asserts.
Retief
Dan
> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 09:59:28 -0800, Dan <dnad...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Cite the section of the executive order which exempted my personal
>>>> possession of any and all gold coin and gold bullion I may have (which
>>>> are held for for purposes other than industrial and artistic uses).
>>>>
>>>> Be precise and to the point.
>>>>
>>>> Retief
>>> Ooooh. That's gonna be tough. I don't think he can do it.
>> Don't have to, I already reposted the section that denies his claims
>> (which he snipped, I can only assume for that exact reason).
>
> Thank you for your public admission that NONE of the sections excluded
> a private individual from the prohibition of possessing considerable
> quantities of gold coin, and gold bullion.
Huh? Even allowing for the grammar, how does my posting text of the
executive order which calls you a liar come close to proving your point?
Enquiring minds want to know...
> You reproduced the entire document for 2 reasons:
I did not reproduce the entire document. I produced those sections
which called you a liar.
> 1) you are a clueless newbie to Usenet, and you don't understand that
> providing a link to a document is adequate, as the interested reader
> can follow the discussion there. (I can't wait to see Dan is a
> discussion of Shakespeare, as he will feel obligated to reproduce the
> entire text of everything Shakespeare ever wrote, in order to discuss
> "to be, or not to be"...)
Man, are you this stupid in person, or do you just pretend for the
usenet audience?
Pretty sad argument you must have to need to erect a straw man to try
(unsuccessfully) to tear me down so that no one examines your argument...
> and
>
> 2) you have a desire to obfuscate the issue by not singling out the
> section which provides the personal protection for ownership of gold
> for monetary purposes, that you previously asserted -- we understand
> that is because such protection does not exist within the document.
The text YOU snipped called you a liar and supported my contention.
YOU are a liar.
>> He is now making a NEW claim. I'll accept that new claim as stated. It
>> is far from the original claim to which I objected.
>
> No, it isn't.
Yes, your original claim was that FDR made the private possession of
gold illegal. Now, you have changed your claim to "...possession of any
and all gold coin and gold bullion I may have" being made illegal, which
is exactly what the anti-hoarding order did.
Note that it did NOT make personal ownership of ANY FORM of gold
illegal, only the hoarding of large quantities not normally held for
normal use ($100 was a LARGE amount of money back then).
> You are claiming that ownership of gold for monetary
> purposes was not prohibited, because artistic and industrial uses were
> exempted.
No, I am observing that ownership of gold in any form for any purpose
was not made illegal. The "...because artistic and industrial uses were
exempted" canard is purely your imagination, and not based on anything I
wrote or any text I have seen in the current argument from any
participant EXCEPT YOU.
> But you now publicly admit that FDR did outlaw gold coin,
No, I do not. Quit lying, even though that is the ONLY way you can
support your demonstrated-to-be fallacious argument.
> denying the
> States the ability to "make any Thing but gold and silver
> Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts".
That last part doesn't even make sense.
> Your admission or error is accepted.
Your claim that i admitted error is denied, and I am publicly calling
you a pathetic liar.
Smoke on your pipe and put THAT in!
Dan
Dan
> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 09:55:44 -0800, Dan <dnad...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Show me the section of the Constitution that authorized FDR to "alloy"
>>> and "coin" paper money, of no intrinsic value.
>> Can't say where it says the Feds are allowed to "alloy" anything - that
>> is your claim.
>
> "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, ..."
Nary a mention of "alloy."
> If you had bothered to read Madison, you would learn that "regulate"
> has the same meaning often used elsewhere in the Constitution, and has
> nothing to do with "declare" or "order",
That is not true. To "regulate the value thereof" is to "SET" the value
of the coin no matter WHAT it is made of. If you doubt that, check out
the post-1964 "silver" coins... That is what countries attempt to do,
whether on a gold standard or not. If the economy is working, they are
successful; if the economy fails, they often are not (which is why we
elected Obama - to prevent the economy from completely collapsing).
> but rather to "adjust to a standard"
So the US Congress sets the standard for foreign coin??? Yeah, right...
> so US coin was of a known alloy/purity,
No matter what it was made of. That is one small part of the
Congressional duty.
> and thus of a known value.
The Congress sets what the nominal official value is; the market sets
what the actual useful value for commercial trade is.
>
>> The Constitution allows Congress to "coin money," it does not restrict
>> Congress to "minting coins" as you assert.
>
> James Madison, author of the Constitution, disagrees.
He can have had as many opinions as he liked, but that was his limit.
I go by what is written, which is what the state representatives signed,
which is what the states agreed to. 230 years of SCOTUS-accepted
precedent doesn't hurt, either.
>> NOTHING has "intrinsic value." In a gold standard economy, gold is
>
> Bwahahaha... Perhaps this kids page will explain this basic
> definition to you (yes Dan, you ARE dumber than a 5th grader):
From you, I take that as a compliment! If YOU are calling me dumb, I
can take it on experience that you are making an untrue statement.
> http://www.usmint.gov/kids/campCoin/glossary.cfm?view=print
>
> "intrinsic value (bullion value)
> how much the metal in a coin is worth."
So, what is gold's "intrinsic value?" remember, and intrinsic property
does not change with time...
> Yes Dan, gold does have an "intrinsic value".
says some random web site. I can see why your education has been so
sadly neglected: you are easily duped.
> It also has "intrinsic
> properties", for example electrical properties:
>
> http://www.virginia.edu/bohr/mse209/chapter19.htm
>
> (what does Dan think "intrinsic" means?)
Yawn. Intrinsic means an attribute or property of the material itself.
It is interesting that you can pretend enough wits to "understand" a 5th
grade scienciness web page...
So, Mr. Expert, exactly what is gold's "intrinsic value?" You
understand that an intrinsic value will not change tomorrow or 2000
years ago or for whoever looks at it (like those nasty intrinsic
physical properties don't change).
So, in absolute and stable terms, what is gold's intrinsic value?
(HINT: you might want to look up the word "value" before you make a fool
of yourself misanswering the question).
>> worth what the government says it is worth (or what you can get in trade
>> for it), otherwise gold is worth what you can get in trade for it like
>> any other material.
>
> No, you are only partially correct. Gold is only worth what you can
> trade for it -- and this may be driven by what industrial or artistic
> uses you may find for it. Those are 2 reasons why gold continues to
> be a valuable metal.
But, but, but, but, up above you claimed gold had an "intrinsic value."
If the value changes by what people desire, then...
Oops... Poor little retief, can't even keep his own lies straight
within a single post.
> Likewise with silver, platinum, diamonds and other jewels...
Now why did you clip the context?
>>> The prohibition against the States, denies the use of Federal Reserve
>>> Notes in payment of debts.
>> No, it does not.
>
> They are not permitted to tender anything but gold or silver in
> payment of debts.
That is not what the text says...
> This clause of the Constitution has not been repealed.
What clause? Be specific. I looked through the entire Constitution adn
could find NO mention of the states being not ...permitted to tender
anything but gold or silver in payment of debts.
Do you have some super-secret modern version of the Constitution that
the rest of us are not privy to? Is my even asking such a question
permitted in your world?
>>> Gold and silver
>>> certificates were exchangable for gold and silver coin.
>> True. Other currencies, paper and other, are/were not. Nothing in the
>> Constitution makes any such requirement.
>
> Paper was not authorized (and therefore forbidden).
The Constitution is mute on the material to be used for "Money." So are
you saying that there is no Constitutional money??? That would be QUITE
an oversight by the writers and the ratifiers...
> The Pennsylvania Gazette, December 16, 1789:
>
> " ... Since the Federal Constitution has removed all danger of our
> having a paper tender our trade has advanced fifty percent, our
> moneyed people can trust their cash abroad and have brought their coin
> into circulation...."
> The contemporaneous understanding was clearly different than Dan
> asserts.
The belief of a single newspaper writer was possibly different. So?
I'll tell you what. You get 165 Million people to buy what you're
selling, and I will change my tune. Deal?
ONE of us is in looneyland; I live in the United States of America in
the year 2010.
Too bad there are so many (but still remarkably few) people who
understand the concept of money...
Dan
Strabo
Then you and yours can get a room at Motel 6 and work it out. Take it
out of alt.survival.
Retief
>> Thank you for your public admission that NONE of the sections excluded
>> a private individual from the prohibition of possessing considerable
>> quantities of gold coin, and gold bullion.
>
>Huh? Even allowing for the grammar, how does my posting text of the
>executive order which calls you a liar come close to proving your point?
None of the sections you posted exempted gold coin and bullion. My
post clearly referred to the use of gold as money.
Now you persist in trying to raise your dishonest strawman.
>> You reproduced the entire document for 2 reasons:
>
>I did not reproduce the entire document. I produced those sections
>which called you a liar.
No Dan, you are the liar. My post clearly referred to the use of gold
as money. Oh, but I'm sure that totalitarians like yourself believe
that a abridgement of a right, is not really abridgement of a right...
>> 2) you have a desire to obfuscate the issue by not singling out the
>> section which provides the personal protection for ownership of gold
>> for monetary purposes, that you previously asserted -- we understand
>> that is because such protection does not exist within the document.
>
>The text YOU snipped called you a liar and supported my contention.
>
>YOU are a liar.
No Dan, I have established that you are a liar.
>>> He is now making a NEW claim. I'll accept that new claim as stated. It
>>> is far from the original claim to which I objected.
>>
>> No, it isn't.
>
>Yes, your original claim was that FDR made the private possession of
>gold illegal. Now, you have changed your claim to "...possession of any
>and all gold coin and gold bullion I may have" being made illegal, which
>is exactly what the anti-hoarding order did.
No Dan, you are an nothing more than a liar:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.survivalism/msg/c26cd5700fb42d63?dmode=source
Since you have trouble with web links, let me quote:
] And states were prohibited to: "make any Thing but gold and silver
] Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;"
]
] "FDR outlawed possession of the only thing which was permitted as a
] legal tender in payment of debt."
>Note that it did NOT make personal ownership of ANY FORM of gold
>illegal, only the hoarding of large quantities not normally held for
Since that was not what I said, again raising that strawman once again
makes you a liar.
>normal use ($100 was a LARGE amount of money back then).
Really, Dan:
http://www.measuringworth.com/ppowerus/
I put in 1932 (prior to the act), and 2008, the last year it will
calculate, and get this:
"$1576.16 in the year 2008 has the same "purchase power" as $100 in
the year 1932."
So Dan thinks that having PART of a month's mortgage in cash is "a
LARGE amount of money".
I carry much more than that amount when I travel. That is not a LARGE
amount of cash -- well, maybe it is for a McDonald's employee like
yourself...
>> But you now publicly admit that FDR did outlaw gold coin,
>
>No, I do not. Quit lying, even though that is the ONLY way you can
>support your demonstrated-to-be fallacious argument.
Dan, stop lying. You have made it quite apparent that you are a
troll.
Retief
Retief
>Nary a mention of "alloy."
Oh, that is found here, in the coinage act of 1792, Dan:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=371
Perhaps you were unaware of this fact.
>> If you had bothered to read Madison, you would learn that "regulate"
>> has the same meaning often used elsewhere in the Constitution, and has
>> nothing to do with "declare" or "order",
>
>That is not true. To "regulate the value thereof" is to "SET" the value
>of the coin no matter WHAT it is made of. If you doubt that, check out
Here's the coinage act of 1792:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=369
Curiously, your claim of "SET the value" seems to be found here:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=371
For example, here they "set the value" of the Eagle:
"Sec 9. .... --each to be the value of ten dollars or units, and to
contain two hundred and forty-seven grains and four eighths of a grain
of pure, or two hundred and seventy grains of standard gold."
Yes, the regulated (from an engineering standpoint) the value of the
coin to contain a precise amount of gold.
Curiously, the didn't say "an Eagle is worth 1 loaf of bread", or
anything similar -- so much for your claim of "regulate the value
thereof", as you asserted.
But feel free to post a cite to support your claim that Congress has
that authority, and show where they "regulate the value thereof" (from
that legal sense, not the engineering sense)
>> but rather to "adjust to a standard"
>
>So the US Congress sets the standard for foreign coin??? Yeah, right...
Congress is perfectly capable of determining the alloy, and set the
"exchange value" to the known alloy of US coins.
>> and thus of a known value.
>
>The Congress sets what the nominal official value is;
Oh, so Dan believes that Congress has the power to say "1 loaf of
bread is 1 dollar". Absurd!
>the market sets what the actual useful value for commercial trade is.
Yes Dan, so if they call if "dollars" or "fudgepuppies" makes no
difference, since the trade value is set elsewhere (i.e. by the
market, based on the alloy content).
You will note that in the coinage act of 1792, they call it "dollars
or units" -- they also understood that is doesn't matter what you call
it.
>>> The Constitution allows Congress to "coin money," it does not restrict
>>> Congress to "minting coins" as you assert.
>>
>> James Madison, author of the Constitution, disagrees.
>
>He can have had as many opinions as he liked, but that was his limit.
Yeah, what could the AUTHOR OF THE TEXT possibly know of the MEANING
OF THE TEXT which they wrote.
Under Dan's interpretation, every reader is free to tell Dan what Dan
really meant in his text. Indeed readers, feel free to fill in for
Dan, in explaining Dan.
>I go by what is written, which is what the state representatives signed,
>which is what the states agreed to. 230 years of SCOTUS-accepted
>precedent doesn't hurt, either.
What Dan means by this, is that he is a totalitarian, and believes
that Dan is the law, and that anyone who disagrees with him is welcome
to cram corn cobs up Dan's butt.
(hey Dan, now this is fun, since you declared that anyone except the
author is free to tell the author and others what the author meant)
>>> NOTHING has "intrinsic value." In a gold standard economy, gold is
>>
>> Bwahahaha... Perhaps this kids page will explain this basic
>> definition to you (yes Dan, you ARE dumber than a 5th grader):
>
> From you, I take that as a compliment! If YOU are calling me dumb, I
>can take it on experience that you are making an untrue statement.
Recall Dan, you said: "NOTHING has "intrinsic value." I left your
claim above, since you already forgot.
INTRINSIC value is precisely the value that gold (and other metals)
have. Intrinsic generally refers to the basic properties of a _metal_
that constitutes an item -- but is _sometimes_ used in reference to
basic properties of other materials.
>> http://www.usmint.gov/kids/campCoin/glossary.cfm?view=print
>>
>> "intrinsic value (bullion value)
>> how much the metal in a coin is worth."
>
>So, what is gold's "intrinsic value?" remember, and intrinsic property
>does not change with time...
Golds intrinsic value is the value of the metal found within the gold
(alloy) coin.
Perhaps you should learn to use a dictionary, and learn what the word
"intrinsic" means.
>> Yes Dan, gold does have an "intrinsic value".
>
>says some random web site. I can see why your education has been so
>sadly neglected: you are easily duped.
Now this is comedy...Dan declares that the US Mint is "some random web
site", when it comes to an understanding of the value of coinage.
>> It also has "intrinsic
>> properties", for example electrical properties:
>>
>> http://www.virginia.edu/bohr/mse209/chapter19.htm
>>
>> (what does Dan think "intrinsic" means?)
>
>Yawn. Intrinsic means an attribute or property of the material itself.
Yes Dan, I'm glad that you finally looked up the meaning of the word.
But let us recall that you claimed that NOTHING had an intrisic value.
Indeed, you now admit that EVERYTHING has intrinsic values.
>So, Mr. Expert, exactly what is gold's "intrinsic value?" You
Gold's intrinsic value(s) is(are) the value(s) of the metal that
constitutes the coin.
The intrinsic value for density is: 19.30g/cm^3
The intrinsic value for metling point is: 1064.18 �C
The intrinsic value for resistivity is: 22.14 n-ohm-m (@20 �C)
>understand that an intrinsic value will not change tomorrow or 2000
>years ago or for whoever looks at it (like those nasty intrinsic
>physical properties don't change).
See above, yes they are quite contant.
>So, in absolute and stable terms, what is gold's intrinsic value?
See above.
>(HINT: you might want to look up the word "value" before you make a fool
>of yourself misanswering the question).
Hint, YOU might want to look up the word "value" before you make a
fool of yourself (oops, too late).
>>> worth what the government says it is worth (or what you can get in trade
>>> for it), otherwise gold is worth what you can get in trade for it like
>>> any other material.
>>
>> No, you are only partially correct. Gold is only worth what you can
>> trade for it -- and this may be driven by what industrial or artistic
>> uses you may find for it. Those are 2 reasons why gold continues to
>> be a valuable metal.
>
>But, but, but, but, up above you claimed gold had an "intrinsic value."
> If the value changes by what people desire, then...
Gold does have an intrinsic value -- many intrinsic values, in fact.
>Oops... Poor little retief, can't even keep his own lies straight
>within a single post.
Poor Dan, he hopes that he can lie his way out of this one.
>> Likewise with silver, platinum, diamonds and other jewels...
>
>Now why did you clip the context?
Dan apparently wishes to assert that silver and platinum do not have
instrinsic values.
>> This clause of the Constitution has not been repealed.
>
>What clause? Be specific. I looked through the entire Constitution adn
>could find NO mention of the states being not ...permitted to tender
>anything but gold or silver in payment of debts.
James Madison, Federalist 44:
"No one of these mischiefs is less incident to a power in the States
to emit paper money, than to coin gold or silver. The power to make
any thing but gold and silver a tender in payment of debts, is
withdrawn from the States, on the same principle with that of issuing
a paper currency."
>> The Pennsylvania Gazette, December 16, 1789:
>>
>> " ... Since the Federal Constitution has removed all danger of our
>> having a paper tender our trade has advanced fifty percent, our
>> moneyed people can trust their cash abroad and have brought their coin
>> into circulation...."
>
>> The contemporaneous understanding was clearly different than Dan
>> asserts.
>
>The belief of a single newspaper writer was possibly different. So?
Madison also says that Dan is wrong, as do many other founders.
>I'll tell you what. You get 165 Million people to buy what you're
>selling, and I will change my tune. Deal?
Madison's fine essay in Federalist #10 explains why the United States
does not emabrace your desired government.
But theoretic politicans and totalitarians like yourself patronize
this species of government.
Retief
Lib Loo
"Retief" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:g3p2k5lhafkkvvemc...@4ax.com...
chump change
Dan
> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 17:20:55 -0800, Dan <dnad...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Nary a mention of "alloy."
>
> Oh, that is found here, in the coinage act of 1792, Dan:
>
> http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=371
>
> Perhaps you were unaware of this fact.
>
>>> If you had bothered to read Madison, you would learn that "regulate"
>>> has the same meaning often used elsewhere in the Constitution, and has
>>> nothing to do with "declare" or "order",
>> That is not true. To "regulate the value thereof" is to "SET" the value
>> of the coin no matter WHAT it is made of. If you doubt that, check out
>
> Here's the coinage act of 1792:
>
> http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=369
>
> Curiously, your claim of "SET the value" seems to be found here:
>
> http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=371
>
> For example, here they "set the value" of the Eagle:
>
> "Sec 9. .... --each to be the value of ten dollars or units, and to
> contain two hundred and forty-seven grains and four eighths of a grain
> of pure, or two hundred and seventy grains of standard gold."
>
> Yes, the regulated (from an engineering standpoint) the value of the
> coin to contain a precise amount of gold.
>
> Curiously, the didn't say "an Eagle is worth 1 loaf of bread", or
> anything similar -- so much for your claim of "regulate the value
> thereof", as you asserted.
Hmmm. X amount of gold is worth Y dollars. Nope, that is not setting
the value of gold. Nosiree.
> But feel free to post a cite to support your claim that Congress has
> that authority, and show where they "regulate the value thereof" (from
> that legal sense, not the engineering sense)
No need, you did it for me. Thanks.
>>> but rather to "adjust to a standard"
>> So the US Congress sets the standard for foreign coin??? Yeah, right...
>
> Congress is perfectly capable of determining the alloy, and set the
> "exchange value" to the known alloy of US coins.
Bingo.
Damn those shifting goal posts...
Ah, well, when one argues with a snake, one has to prepare to avoid
being bitten...
>>> and thus of a known value.
>> The Congress sets what the nominal official value is;
>
> Oh, so Dan believes that Congress has the power to say "1 loaf of
> bread is 1 dollar". Absurd!
Point out where I said that, and I will retract.
>> the market sets what the actual useful value for commercial trade is.
>
> Yes Dan, so if they call if "dollars" or "fudgepuppies" makes no
> difference, since the trade value is set elsewhere (i.e. by the
> market, based on the alloy content).
Or if they use gold or paper as currency, it matters not.
Gee...
> You will note that in the coinage act of 1792, they call it "dollars
> or units" -- they also understood that is doesn't matter what you call
> it.
Nor do I.
>>>> The Constitution allows Congress to "coin money," it does not restrict
>>>> Congress to "minting coins" as you assert.
>>> James Madison, author of the Constitution, disagrees.
>> He can have had as many opinions as he liked, but that was his limit.
>
> Yeah, what could the AUTHOR OF THE TEXT possibly know of the MEANING
> OF THE TEXT which they wrote.
He might make any claim he likes about the supposed meaning, true or
not, but what matters is what the signatories signed - the actual words
used.
> Under Dan's interpretation, every reader is free to tell Dan what Dan
> really meant in his text.
If it is a reasonable interpretation of the words, of course. That is
the boon and bane of authors. Then it is up to me to clarify what I
meant to say, which is why I try to be clear, unless I am having fun
with the language or assuming prior knowledge, in which case I expect
ahead of time the potential need to clarify, or expect the reader to do
some legwork.
As do you.
> Indeed readers, feel free to fill in for
> Dan, in explaining Dan.
I have made my points painfully clear. And have redone so when it is
evident that you fail to understand them still.
Here, it is a case of your not having the proper prior knowledge about
money.
>> I go by what is written, which is what the state representatives signed,
>> which is what the states agreed to. 230 years of SCOTUS-accepted
>> precedent doesn't hurt, either.
>
> What Dan means by this, is that he is a totalitarian,
Huh? Now, given that I expect to have to explain things to the likes of
you, I still do not suffer fools who make shit up because their
arguments is specious and unsupportable.
So, with that clarified, bullshit.
Of course, if you can point out, specifically, where the above statement
leads a rational human being to jump to the conclusion you do, feel free.
I'll wait.
> and believes that Dan is the law,
More bullshit.
> and that anyone who disagrees with him is welcome
> to cram corn cobs up Dan's butt.
Thanks for proving my point. BTW: what is it with you rightwingnuts and
your fixation on homosexual and anal sex, and every time you lose an
argument you revert to publicizing your pathetic sexual fantasies???
Just asking.
> (hey Dan, now this is fun, since you declared that anyone except the
> author is free to tell the author and others what the author meant)
Yawn. Being irrational is not helping your cause. Hyperbole is a
valuable tool, but you really don't understand how to use it...
>>>> NOTHING has "intrinsic value." In a gold standard economy, gold is
>>> Bwahahaha... Perhaps this kids page will explain this basic
>>> definition to you (yes Dan, you ARE dumber than a 5th grader):
>> From you, I take that as a compliment! If YOU are calling me dumb, I
>> can take it on experience that you are making an untrue statement.
>
> Recall Dan, you said: "NOTHING has "intrinsic value."
Yes, I did.
> I left your claim above, since you already forgot.
And you can point out where I demonstrate that I forgot. Perhaps you
conveniently forgot, since you know it is true.
> INTRINSIC value is precisely the value that gold (and other metals)
> have.
So, what is it, precisely?
> Intrinsic generally refers to the basic properties of a _metal_
> that constitutes an item -- but is _sometimes_ used in reference to
> basic properties of other materials.
Thanks for repeating me. So, are you going to answer the question, or
just prove you don't understand even the question?
>>> http://www.usmint.gov/kids/campCoin/glossary.cfm?view=print
>>>
>>> "intrinsic value (bullion value)
>>> how much the metal in a coin is worth."
>> So, what is gold's "intrinsic value?" remember, and intrinsic property
>> does not change with time...
>
> Golds intrinsic value is the value of the metal found within the gold
> (alloy) coin.
Um, yeah. And red cars are the color red. Any other pearls of wisdom
you wish to impart on the audience?
> Perhaps you should learn to use a dictionary, and learn what the word
> "intrinsic" means.
Perhaps it is you who needs to use said dictionary. I use the "Shorter
Oxford English Dictionary, Fifth Edition, Copyright 2002. Perhaps the
word has changed definitions since then. If so, let me know.
>>> Yes Dan, gold does have an "intrinsic value".
>> says some random web site. I can see why your education has been so
>> sadly neglected: you are easily duped.
>
> Now this is comedy...Dan declares that the US Mint is "some random web
> site", when it comes to an understanding of the value of coinage.
Laugh away, you still haven't answered the question. That website
conflates "intrinsic" and "bullion," which merely separates the declared
numismatic value from the market value of the coinage metal. I was
using a different meaning of the word intrinsic" meaning a property held
by the metal itself. Some intrinsic properties of gold are its
ductility, resistance to corrosion, and conductivity.
And I ask again, what is the intrinsic value of gold?
>>> It also has "intrinsic
>>> properties", for example electrical properties:
>>>
>>> http://www.virginia.edu/bohr/mse209/chapter19.htm
>>>
>>> (what does Dan think "intrinsic" means?)
>> Yawn. Intrinsic means an attribute or property of the material itself.
>
> Yes Dan, I'm glad that you finally looked up the meaning of the word.
Um, Skippy, that is the meaning >>I<< used all along. Note I did not
claim it meant something else (as you did, above) when it was
convenient. ONE of us had to look it up, and, gee whiz, it weren't me...
Now that we have finally settled on a meaning...
> But let us recall that you claimed that NOTHING had an intrisic value.
> Indeed, you now admit that EVERYTHING has intrinsic values.
So, you can point out where, in the text above, I make that claim.
I'll wait.
And, no, you cannot redefine words and make up definitions to rewrite my
text. If you have a reasonable interpretation of my words that leads
you to the conclusion you made up, I will clarify my meaning.
>> So, Mr. Expert, exactly what is gold's "intrinsic value?" You
>
> Gold's intrinsic value(s) is(are) the value(s) of the metal that
> constitutes the coin.
And a red car is red. Tautologies are not helpful.
> The intrinsic value for density is: 19.30g/cm^3
> The intrinsic value for metling point is: 1064.18 �C
> The intrinsic value for resistivity is: 22.14 n-ohm-m (@20 �C)
OK, you are using a different meaning of the word "value," a magnitude
or quantity. A reasonable interpretation.
I am using the meaning "worth." That explains some of the confusion.
>> understand that an intrinsic value will not change tomorrow or 2000
>> years ago or for whoever looks at it (like those nasty intrinsic
>> physical properties don't change).
>
> See above, yes they are quite contant.
>
>> So, in absolute and stable terms, what is gold's intrinsic value?
>
> See above.
>
>> (HINT: you might want to look up the word "value" before you make a fool
>> of yourself misanswering the question).
>
> Hint, YOU might want to look up the word "value" before you make a
> fool of yourself (oops, too late).
So, my point is proven. Words often have more than one reasonable
interpretation. That is why legislation takes time and lawyers, to
attempt to get the meaning specific and correct.
However, you stretched things a bit to get from a simple "intrinsic
values" to "measured values for intrinsic properties."
This is also why extemporaneous writing is so fraught with peril... ; )
Be that as it may, and the SCOTUS does take these possible
interpretations and intended meanings into account, and we are, in the
final analysis, dependent on 9 people in dresses to declare, to the best
of their majority-rule opinions, what the Constitution and the laws
mean, and whether there is a conflict between a law and the
Constitution. So far, your interpretation has not fared well in the
only forum in which you could gain ascendancy...
So, the bottom line is, while we both may hold to our interpretations as
to law and Constitutionality, and may argue our cases, it is a moot
point in the real world, unless the out-of-favor interpretation is
adhered to by a critical mass of politically active individuals, and a
change is made (whether by political or violent methods).
As usual, I will muddle along doing my own thing, thinking my own
esoteric thoughts, and being practical in my daily interactions with my
fellow personages.
>>>> worth what the government says it is worth (or what you can get in trade
>>>> for it), otherwise gold is worth what you can get in trade for it like
>>>> any other material.
>>> No, you are only partially correct. Gold is only worth what you can
>>> trade for it -- and this may be driven by what industrial or artistic
>>> uses you may find for it. Those are 2 reasons why gold continues to
>>> be a valuable metal.
>> But, but, but, but, up above you claimed gold had an "intrinsic value."
>> If the value changes by what people desire, then...
>
> Gold does have an intrinsic value -- many intrinsic values, in fact.
Well, kind of... I think you will find, if you were truly honest, that
you had to stretch things quite a bit to shoehorn the definition you
settled on into the context of my writings. That old Occam's Razor
would not be kind your your attempt, I would guess.
>> Oops... Poor little retief, can't even keep his own lies straight
>> within a single post.
>
> Poor Dan, he hopes that he can lie his way out of this one.
Disappointed again... Do you ever get tired of that - it seems to
happen to you quite frequently!
>>> Likewise with silver, platinum, diamonds and other jewels...
>> Now why did you clip the context?
>
> Dan apparently wishes to assert that silver and platinum do not have
> instrinsic values.
Wow! Did you figure that out yourself, or did you just guess?
>>> This clause of the Constitution has not been repealed.
>> What clause? Be specific. I looked through the entire Constitution and
>> could find NO mention of the states being not ...permitted to tender
>> anything but gold or silver in payment of debts.
>
> James Madison, Federalist 44:
>
> "No one of these mischiefs is less incident to a power in the States
> to emit paper money, than to coin gold or silver. The power to make
> any thing but gold and silver a tender in payment of debts, is
> withdrawn from the States, on the same principle with that of issuing
> a paper currency."
Jimmy apparently didn't really understand money. He did understand the
problem with governments of the time, and we were embarking on a grand
experiment, so I guess we should not fault him for being a bit
conservative under the circumstances.
>>> The Pennsylvania Gazette, December 16, 1789:
>>>
>>> " ... Since the Federal Constitution has removed all danger of our
>>> having a paper tender our trade has advanced fifty percent, our
>>> moneyed people can trust their cash abroad and have brought their coin
>>> into circulation...."
>>> The contemporaneous understanding was clearly different than Dan
>>> asserts.
>> The belief of a single newspaper writer was possibly different. So?
>
> Madison also says that Dan is wrong, as do many other founders.
There was a large amount of disagreement about a lot of issues during,
and after, the writing of the Constitution. That's what makes reading
tea leaves, er, divining the meaning of the founders a task fraught with
frustrations. On virtually every issue, there were champions on many
sides. What we need to concern ourselves with are the words that were
finally agreed upon, and even then there is much room for interpretation.
That is why I like to challenge firmly held beliefs based on
single-minded interpretations. Some things I do know, other things I
merely wish to point out that alternatives are both possible, and
perhaps better or more practical.
But, I also expect sacred cows to be guarded fiercely, which requires
both ingenuity and equal fierceness on my part in order to break through
the brittle shells thrown up in defense...
>> I'll tell you what. You get 165 Million people to buy what you're
>> selling, and I will change my tune. Deal?
>
> Madison's fine essay in Federalist #10 explains why the United States
> does not emabrace your desired government.
Yet it is what we have now. So, again, get your troops together and we
can talk. Just keep a close eye on things, because one the wheels of
change and the dice of chance are rolling, the probability that the end
result will be to your liking are, well, let's just say history is not
on your side for making a better place to live...
You see, I am very conservative (from a practical perspective), and
disagree with many iconic figures of the Revolutionary Period, some of
the best known of whom did not take their own advise and kept far away
from the front lines during the unpleasantness...
> But theoretic politicans and totalitarians like yourself patronize
> this species of government.
Again with the specious name-calling.
Point out where I have ever given you cause to name me such.
Seems to me that you are the theoretician who tries to politic based on
a flawed understanding of human interactions.
But is has been a good argument.
Dan
Retief
>> "Sec 9. .... --each to be the value of ten dollars or units, and to
>> contain two hundred and forty-seven grains and four eighths of a grain
>> of pure, or two hundred and seventy grains of standard gold."
>>
>> Yes, the regulated (from an engineering standpoint) the value of the
>> coin to contain a precise amount of gold.
>>
>> Curiously, the didn't say "an Eagle is worth 1 loaf of bread", or
>> anything similar -- so much for your claim of "regulate the value
>> thereof", as you asserted.
>
>Hmmm. X amount of gold is worth Y dollars. Nope, that is not setting
>the value of gold. Nosiree.
Yes Dan, they have set the value in the engineering sense -- they have
specified that a given coin would have a certain gold content, and
thus guaranteed that it will have a given intrinsic value (weight,
purity, and other properties).
Oh wait, that was already pointed out.
So Dan, what is the intrinsic value of a paper 10 dollar bill?
>> But feel free to post a cite to support your claim that Congress has
>> that authority, and show where they "regulate the value thereof" (from
>> that legal sense, not the engineering sense)
>
>No need, you did it for me. Thanks.
Yes Dan, in the engineering sense -- they have specified that a given
coin would have a certain gold content, and thus guarantee that it
will have a given intrinsic value.
>>>> but rather to "adjust to a standard"
>>> So the US Congress sets the standard for foreign coin??? Yeah, right...
>>
>> Congress is perfectly capable of determining the alloy, and set the
>> "exchange value" to the known alloy of US coins.
>
>Bingo.
>
>Damn those shifting goal posts...
Which ones are those, Dan?
>>>> and thus of a known value.
>>> The Congress sets what the nominal official value is;
>>
>> Oh, so Dan believes that Congress has the power to say "1 loaf of
>> bread is 1 dollar". Absurd!
>
>Point out where I said that, and I will retract.
No, instead you believe that Congress can say that a piece of paper is
247.5 gr gold. Since paper is not gold, the "value" thereof cannot be
"SET" to ten dollars. It is not "ten dollars", it is paper.
If it could be traded upon demand for 247.5 gr of gold, you could
argue that it is equivalent -- but it is still not actual gold.
>>> the market sets what the actual useful value for commercial trade is.
>>
>> Yes Dan, so if they call if "dollars" or "fudgepuppies" makes no
>> difference, since the trade value is set elsewhere (i.e. by the
>> market, based on the alloy content).
>
>Or if they use gold or paper as currency, it matters not.
Paper is not permitted.
What is the intrinsic value of a paper 10 dollar bill?
>>>>> The Constitution allows Congress to "coin money," it does not restrict
>>>>> Congress to "minting coins" as you assert.
>>>> James Madison, author of the Constitution, disagrees.
>>> He can have had as many opinions as he liked, but that was his limit.
>>
>> Yeah, what could the AUTHOR OF THE TEXT possibly know of the MEANING
>> OF THE TEXT which they wrote.
>
>He might make any claim he likes about the supposed meaning, true or
>not, but what matters is what the signatories signed - the actual words
>used.
So show us where those other signatories made statements that support
your claims (e.g. regarding paper money being allowed).
We can find the opinions of a few signers:
Alexander Hamilton:
"To emit an unfunded paper as the sign of value ought not to continue
a formal part of the Constitution, nor even hereafter to be employed;
being, in its nature, pregnant with abuses, and liable to be made the
engine of imposition and fraud; holding out temptations equally
pernicious to the integrity of government and to the morals of the
people."
George Washington:
"But if in the pursuit of the means we should unfortunately stumble
again on unfunded paper money or any similar species of fraud, we
shall assuredly give a fatal stab to our national credit in its
infancy. Paper money will invariably operate in the body of politics
as spirit liquors on the human body. They prey on the vitals and
ultimately destroy them."
Ben Franklin:
"The refusal of King George to operate an honest colonial money system
which freed the ordinary man from the clutches of the manipulators was
probably the prime cause of the Revolution."
"The Colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other
matters, had it not been that England took away from the Colonies
their money, which created unemployment and dis-satisfaction."
And what about some others we might know:
Thomas Jefferson:
"Paper is poverty,... it is only the ghost of money, and not money
itself"
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue
of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and
corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of
all property until their children will wake up homeless on the
continent their fathers conquered."
[let us note that "inflating" a gold coin, of known intrinsic value,
is quite impossible -- paper, however...]
Daniel Webster:
"Of all the contrivances devised for cheating the laboring classes of
mankind, none has been more effective than that which deludes him with
paper money."
"We are in danger of being overwhelmed with irredeemable paper, mere
paper, representing not gold nor silver; no sir, representing nothing
but broken promises, bad faith, bankrupt corporations, cheated
creditors and a ruined people."
Pelatiah Webster:
"Paper money polluted the equity of our laws, turned them into engines
of oppression, corrupted the justice of our public administration,
destroyed the fortunes of thousands who had confidence in it,
enervated the trade, husbandry, and manufactures of our country, and
went far to destroy the morality of our people."
George Bancroft:
"Madison, agreeing with the journal of the convention, records that
the grant of power to emit bills of credit was refused by a majority
of more than four to one. The evidence is perfect; no power to emit
paper money was granted to the legislature of the United States."
Voltaire:
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value--- zero."
>> Under Dan's interpretation, every reader is free to tell Dan what Dan
>> really meant in his text.
>
>If it is a reasonable interpretation of the words, of course. That is
>the boon and bane of authors. Then it is up to me to clarify what I
>meant to say, which is why I try to be clear, unless I am having fun
Yet you tell us that Madison didn't know what Madison meant.
>>>>> NOTHING has "intrinsic value." In a gold standard economy, gold is
>>>> Bwahahaha... Perhaps this kids page will explain this basic
>>>> definition to you (yes Dan, you ARE dumber than a 5th grader):
>>> From you, I take that as a compliment! If YOU are calling me dumb, I
>>> can take it on experience that you are making an untrue statement.
>>
>> Recall Dan, you said: "NOTHING has "intrinsic value."
>
>Yes, I did.
>
>> I left your claim above, since you already forgot.
>
>And you can point out where I demonstrate that I forgot. Perhaps you
>conveniently forgot, since you know it is true.
Dan: "Yawn. Intrinsic means an attribute or property of the material
itself."
>>>> http://www.usmint.gov/kids/campCoin/glossary.cfm?view=print
>>>>
>>>> "intrinsic value (bullion value)
>>>> how much the metal in a coin is worth."
>>> So, what is gold's "intrinsic value?" remember, and intrinsic property
>>> does not change with time...
>>
>> Golds intrinsic value is the value of the metal found within the gold
>> (alloy) coin.
>
>Um, yeah. And red cars are the color red. Any other pearls of wisdom
>you wish to impart on the audience?
An Eagle (ca 1792) contains 247.5 gr of gold.
>>>> Yes Dan, gold does have an "intrinsic value".
>>> says some random web site. I can see why your education has been so
>>> sadly neglected: you are easily duped.
>>
>> Now this is comedy...Dan declares that the US Mint is "some random web
>> site", when it comes to an understanding of the value of coinage.
>
>Laugh away, you still haven't answered the question. That website
>conflates "intrinsic" and "bullion," which merely separates the declared
No, they gave an (incomplete) definition of intrinsic value, in
reference to bullion. A common usage, appropriate to your question.
>numismatic value from the market value of the coinage metal. I was
>using a different meaning of the word intrinsic" meaning a property held
>by the metal itself. Some intrinsic properties of gold are its
>ductility, resistance to corrosion, and conductivity.
>
>And I ask again, what is the intrinsic value of gold?
What is the intrinsic value of a paper 10 dollar bill? How
is it different than the intrinsic value of a paper 100 dollar bill?
(an old English major friend of mine loved to point out that first the
item had to first be rendered down to its base metals... ;)
>>>> It also has "intrinsic
>>>> properties", for example electrical properties:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.virginia.edu/bohr/mse209/chapter19.htm
>>>>
>>>> (what does Dan think "intrinsic" means?)
>>> Yawn. Intrinsic means an attribute or property of the material itself.
>>
>> Yes Dan, I'm glad that you finally looked up the meaning of the word.
>
>Um, Skippy, that is the meaning >>I<< used all along. Note I did not
>claim it meant something else (as you did, above) when it was
>convenient. ONE of us had to look it up, and, gee whiz, it weren't me...
I have used the same meaning all along, Dan.
>Now that we have finally settled on a meaning...
>
>> But let us recall that you claimed that NOTHING had an intrisic value.
>> Indeed, you now admit that EVERYTHING has intrinsic values.
>
>So, you can point out where, in the text above, I make that claim.
Dan: "Yawn. Intrinsic means an attribute or property of the material
itself."
Clearly all materials have properties, many of them quantified, and/or
quantifiable.
Now from a semantic standpoint, it is possible that "nothingness" also
has intrinsic values (presumably you would be talking about vacuum of
space -- though it's not really "nothingness") -- but this does not
appear to be what you intended to say.
But everything else certainly has such value(s).
>>> So, Mr. Expert, exactly what is gold's "intrinsic value?" You
>>
>> Gold's intrinsic value(s) is(are) the value(s) of the metal that
>> constitutes the coin.
>
>And a red car is red. Tautologies are not helpful.
You are asking "what color is a red car?"
>> The intrinsic value for density is: 19.30g/cm^3
>> The intrinsic value for metling point is: 1064.18 �C
>> The intrinsic value for resistivity is: 22.14 n-ohm-m (@20 �C)
>
>OK, you are using a different meaning of the word "value," a magnitude
>or quantity. A reasonable interpretation.
>
>I am using the meaning "worth." That explains some of the confusion.
Yes, you are groping toward the question of "what is the commodity
trade rate for gold versus other commodities".
A known quantity of gold has a certain trade value. Paper also has a
certain trade value. Used paper generally has a lower trade value
than un-used paper (making used greenbacks an anomaly... ;).
The trade rate for various commodities is driven by supply and demand.
Gold is a rather stable commodity, being mined at a fairly constant
rate, consumed at a fairly constant rate, and being recycled at a
fairly constant rate (recovered from "consumed" uses -- say,
electronics).
Corn, wheat, tree leaves and the like are far more volatile for trade
rates, being subject to seasonal/yearly variations in availability
(search for "leaf" ;):
http://www.movieprop.com/tvandmovie/reviews/hitchhikersguide.htm
A commodity is "worth" whatever others are willing to trade for it --
nothing more, nothing less.
If no-one wants your commodity, it will have little or no trade value.
This happened in American history, where a paper dollar traded
one-for-one with a silver dollar in one year, and the very next year
the trade rate was $1000 paper dollars per silver dollar.
This is the basis of the phrase "as worthless as a continental".
http://www.coins.nd.edu/ColCurrency/FAQ/cc-notesinfo.html
>>> (HINT: you might want to look up the word "value" before you make a fool
>>> of yourself misanswering the question).
>>
>> Hint, YOU might want to look up the word "value" before you make a
>> fool of yourself (oops, too late).
>
>So, my point is proven. Words often have more than one reasonable
>interpretation. That is why legislation takes time and lawyers, to
>attempt to get the meaning specific and correct.
Lawyers may play word games, but they are unable to create a demand
for a product, if no-one wants it.
Gold, silver, platinum, corn, wheat, oats and many other commodities
are useful to people, and thus have a market, regardless of a lawyer
attempting to declare that a piece of paper is "ten dollars".
>However, you stretched things a bit to get from a simple "intrinsic
>values" to "measured values for intrinsic properties."
A value is a numerical quantity, usually measured or assigned.
Dan:"Intrinsic means an attribute or property of the material itself."
So, an "intrinsic value" is a quantified attribute or property of the
material itself.
In the case of the Eagle, discussed above, one such quantified
property is that it contains 247.5 gr of pure gold.
Clearly the market determines the trade rate for this commodity, not
the Congress.
>Be that as it may, and the SCOTUS does take these possible
>interpretations and intended meanings into account, and we are, in the
>final analysis, dependent on 9 people in dresses to declare, to the best
>of their majority-rule opinions, what the Constitution and the laws
>mean, and whether there is a conflict between a law and the
>Constitution.
Or, as they often do, they just make shit up as they go, to support
their political biases...
>>>>> worth what the government says it is worth (or what you can get in trade
>>>>> for it), otherwise gold is worth what you can get in trade for it like
>>>>> any other material.
>>>> No, you are only partially correct. Gold is only worth what you can
>>>> trade for it -- and this may be driven by what industrial or artistic
>>>> uses you may find for it. Those are 2 reasons why gold continues to
>>>> be a valuable metal.
>>> But, but, but, but, up above you claimed gold had an "intrinsic value."
>>> If the value changes by what people desire, then...
Again, you're trying to impose a commodity trade rate. The market set
that trade rate, based on supply and demand.
>> Gold does have an intrinsic value -- many intrinsic values, in fact.
>
>Well, kind of... I think you will find, if you were truly honest, that
>you had to stretch things quite a bit to shoehorn the definition you
>settled on into the context of my writings. That old Occam's Razor
>would not be kind your your attempt, I would guess.
Not at all. I never claimed that gold had a fixed commodity trade
rate with other commodities. Only that it has known intrinsic
value(s). People in the marketplace know what gold is, and will
determine what they are willing to trade for it.
Paper has little trade value, when not supported by FAITH. What
practical use does a wrinkled, smelly piece of paper have, anyway?
This is what happens when the commodity known as "paper money" is not
linked to a tangible commodity:
It is also instructive to read about the history of the Weimar
Republic inflationary problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GermanyHyperChart.jpg
>>>> Likewise with silver, platinum, diamonds and other jewels...
>>> Now why did you clip the context?
>>
>> Dan apparently wishes to assert that silver and platinum do not have
>> instrinsic values.
>
>Wow! Did you figure that out yourself, or did you just guess?
You can look up known instrinsic values for silver and platinum.
These metals, as all other useful metals, also have a trade rate with
other commodities.
>> James Madison, Federalist 44:
>> "No one of these mischiefs is less incident to a power in the States
>> to emit paper money, than to coin gold or silver. The power to make
>> any thing but gold and silver a tender in payment of debts, is
>> withdrawn from the States, on the same principle with that of issuing
>> a paper currency."
>
>Jimmy apparently didn't really understand money. He did understand the
>problem with governments of the time, and we were embarking on a grand
>experiment, so I guess we should not fault him for being a bit
>conservative under the circumstances.
A large fraction of the men involved "apparently didn't really
understand money", since they voted overwhelmingly against allowing
paper money.
>frustrations. On virtually every issue, there were champions on many
>sides. What we need to concern ourselves with are the words that were
>finally agreed upon, and even then there is much room for interpretation.
But as a body, they knew quite well that paper money was apt to be "as
worthless as a Continental".
>That is why I like to challenge firmly held beliefs based on
>single-minded interpretations. Some things I do know, other things I
>merely wish to point out that alternatives are both possible, and
>perhaps better or more practical.
Practical is gold and silver certificates -- promissory notes, backed
by actual metal, which may be traded for metal upon demand; notes
which are offered as a convenience, but not required to be used by the
people.
Fraud is unfunded paper, which is printed as quickly as possible,
watering the milk, increasing the available quantity, and reducing the
trade rate with other commodities (aka inflation).
Such inflation benefits debt holders. The largest debt holder is the
US government. The entity printing surplus (counterfeit) money is the
US government.
>>> I'll tell you what. You get 165 Million people to buy what you're
>>> selling, and I will change my tune. Deal?
>>
>> Madison's fine essay in Federalist #10 explains why the United States
>> does not emabrace your desired government.
>
>Yet it is what we have now. So, again, get your troops together and we
>can talk.
Madison:
"...ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been
found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property;
and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been
violent in their deaths."
>> But theoretic politicans and totalitarians like yourself patronize
>> this species of government.
>
>Point out where I have ever given you cause to name me such.
Dan: "I'll tell you what. You get 165 Million people to buy what
you're selling, and I will change my tune. Deal?"
The road to democracy is ultimately the road to totalitarianism.
That is why we are a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.
>Seems to me that you are the theoretician who tries to politic based on
>a flawed understanding of human interactions.
No, I am an originalist. If the meaning of law changes, then it
cannot be known (e.g. Federalist #62) -- if it cannot be known, it
cannot be law. (and thus, our obscene federal code...)
Retief
Gunner Asch
wrote:
Crom...but I love watching an intelligent man at work, cutting bits of
floppy flesh loose from the ever decreasing carcass of a
Leftwinger...the talent, the grace, the style as he works..is art...true
art.
Sigh....
Gunner
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the
means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not
making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of
it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different
countries, that the more public provisions were made for the
poor the less they provided for themselves, and of course became
poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the
more they did for themselves, and became richer." -- Benjamin
Franklin, /The Encouragement of Idleness/, 1766
Observer
<hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 1, 9:40 pm, Retief <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 12:03:22 -0800, Dan <dnada...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >Winston_Smith wrote:
>> >> Frank "Francis the Talkin Mule" Gilliland <wïrenut@NOSPAMïcehouse.net> wrote:
>> >> I did do some surfing to find out how precious metal did during the
>> >> Great Depression. Gold of course was not legal for Americans to own
>> >> and the US government essentially price fixed it for the whole world.
>>
>> That's because Francis the Talking Mule is incompetent. The competent
>> and interested reader can Google the phrase: "worthless as a
>> continental"
>>
>> >Yep, that's what being on the gold standard means...
>>
>> Doofus, the country was established under a gold standard, that's why
>> Congress was granted powers such as: "To coin Money, regulate the
>> Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights
>> and Measures;"
>>
>> And states were prohibited to: "make any Thing but gold and silver
>> Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;"
>>
>> FDR outlawed possession of the only thing which was permitted as a
>> legal tender in payment of debt.
>>
>> Retief
>
>Yes, I know.
>
>I posted elsewhere that FDR made it illegal to own gold.
>
>Observer is calling me a liar because people were actually allowed to
>keep their gold wedding bands and gold teeth.
AND art AND numismatic coin AND $100 face of non-numismatic "common
date" coins AND jewelery.
Heck, a family of five could legally hold 2 pounds of common date gold
coins on top of all the other stuff listed. Yet you claim the private
ownership of gold was made illegal. How many pound of cocaine are you
legally allowed to privately own?
YOUR claim was that FDR made the private ownership of gold ILLEGAL.
THAT is your LIE. I showed you your error. You perpetuate it.
Therefore you've gone from being wrong to being a liar. I'm calling
you a liar because you are lying.
Now kindly remove your nose from my ass on this matter.
__
The last official act of any government is the looting of the nation.
Observer
wrote:
Course if you'd have held the $100 in gold coin, it'd be worth over
$5500 today. Plus any numismatic value that likely accrued.
Dan
> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 11:57:51 -0800, Dan <dnad...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> "Sec 9. .... --each to be the value of ten dollars or units, and to
>>> contain two hundred and forty-seven grains and four eighths of a grain
>>> of pure, or two hundred and seventy grains of standard gold."
>>>
>>> Yes, the regulated (from an engineering standpoint) the value of the
>>> coin to contain a precise amount of gold.
>>>
>>> Curiously, the didn't say "an Eagle is worth 1 loaf of bread", or
>>> anything similar -- so much for your claim of "regulate the value
>>> thereof", as you asserted.
>> Hmmm. X amount of gold is worth Y dollars. Nope, that is not setting
>> the value of gold. Nosiree.
>
> Yes Dan, they have set the value in the engineering sense -- they have
> specified that a given coin would have a certain gold content, and
> thus guaranteed that it will have a given intrinsic value (weight,
> purity, and other properties).
They also set a DOLLAR value,which is exactly what they were tasked to do...
> Oh wait, that was already pointed out.
And never denied. Do you always crow when inappropriate?
> So Dan, what is the intrinsic value of a paper 10 dollar bill?
The same as a $10 gold piece: nothing. To acquire a value, it needs a
human emotion to attach a value to it.
>>> But feel free to post a cite to support your claim that Congress has
>>> that authority, and show where they "regulate the value thereof" (from
>>> that legal sense, not the engineering sense)
>> No need, you did it for me. Thanks.
>
> Yes Dan, in the engineering sense -- they have specified that a given
> coin would have a certain gold content, and thus guarantee that it
> will have a given intrinsic value.
The SET an equivalence value (regulated the value thereof) between gold
and Dollars. Today, Congress regulates that amount of currency
available for use in commerce. Same thing.
>>>>> but rather to "adjust to a standard"
>>>> So the US Congress sets the standard for foreign coin??? Yeah, right...
>>> Congress is perfectly capable of determining the alloy, and set the
>>> "exchange value" to the known alloy of US coins.
>> Bingo.
>>
>> Damn those shifting goal posts...
>
> Which ones are those, Dan?
The ones you keep moving around when the last one was split...
First you said that Congress set the standard for foreign coin, then
you retracted and (correctly) said Congress set the exchange rate for
foreign currency, which was the point I was trying to make all along!
>>>>> and thus of a known value.
>>>> The Congress sets what the nominal official value is;
>>> Oh, so Dan believes that Congress has the power to say "1 loaf of
>>> bread is 1 dollar". Absurd!
>> Point out where I said that, and I will retract.
>
> No,
At least you are honest.
> instead you believe that Congress can say that a piece of paper is
> 247.5 gr gold.
Are you ever going to actually read and respond to what I say? If you
want to have an argument with yourself, let me know, and I will leave
you alone to do so. If you are actually interested in an interchange of
ideas, respond to what I write, not what you wish I wrote.
Congress originally (Civil War era) issued promissory notes good for
exchange for x amount of gold. Eventually, the tie to gold was
eliminated as unnecessary.
> Since paper is not gold, the "value" thereof cannot be
> "SET" to ten dollars. It is not "ten dollars", it is paper.
And a $10 gold coin is not ten dollars, it is a forged lump of metal.
So?
> If it could be traded upon demand for 247.5 gr of gold, you could
> argue that it is equivalent -- but it is still not actual gold.
That was done for a while. Of course a piece of paper is not gold - why
would YOU think it was???
But, also note, the $10 coin is not $10 either, just as the numeral 2 is
not the concept "two." In each case, they are physical representations
of the underlying concept. In the case of the coin, it represents a
quantity of economic activity with an agreed upon value to pay some
debt, which is why it can be gold, or silver, or shells, or paper, or a
large stone with a hole in it, or a handshake, or electrons/magnetic
signatures forming a certain pattern in a computer or traveling between
computers.
Money is a concept. The form it takes is one of convenience only. That
form does have certain characteristics: it should be secure from
tampering, it should be easily identified and verified, it should be
portable to some degree, and it needs to be convenient to use or store.
>>>> the market sets what the actual useful value for commercial trade is.
>>> Yes Dan, so if they call if "dollars" or "fudgepuppies" makes no
>>> difference, since the trade value is set elsewhere (i.e. by the
>>> market, based on the alloy content).
>> Or if they use gold or paper as currency, it matters not.
>
> Paper is not permitted.
Nonsense, paper was the default for many decades...
> What is the intrinsic value of a paper 10 dollar bill?
The exact same as a $10 gold coin, nothing.
All interesting opinions from a time long ago. This is today.
And I never said "...Madison didn't know what Madison meant." That is
your misinterpretation of my quite clear statement.
Reading comprehension is not your strong point...
Sorry to be so blunt, but when you continually misconstrue text to set
up straw men, your arguments are NOT supported but rather damaged.
>>>>>> NOTHING has "intrinsic value." In a gold standard economy, gold is
>>>>> Bwahahaha... Perhaps this kids page will explain this basic
>>>>> definition to you (yes Dan, you ARE dumber than a 5th grader):
>>>> From you, I take that as a compliment! If YOU are calling me dumb, I
>>>> can take it on experience that you are making an untrue statement.
>>> Recall Dan, you said: "NOTHING has "intrinsic value."
>> Yes, I did.
>>
>>> I left your claim above, since you already forgot.
>> And you can point out where I demonstrate that I forgot. Perhaps you
>> conveniently forgot, since you know it is true.
>
> Dan: "Yawn. Intrinsic means an attribute or property of the material
> itself."
Yep.
Now point out where I said ANYTHING that could be reasonably interpreted
as meaning I forgot what I said.
>>>>> http://www.usmint.gov/kids/campCoin/glossary.cfm?view=print
>>>>>
>>>>> "intrinsic value (bullion value)
>>>>> how much the metal in a coin is worth."
>>>> So, what is gold's "intrinsic value?" remember, and intrinsic property
>>>> does not change with time...
>>> Golds intrinsic value is the value of the metal found within the gold
>>> (alloy) coin.
>> Um, yeah. And red cars are the color red. Any other pearls of wisdom
>> you wish to impart on the audience?
>
> An Eagle (ca 1792) contains 247.5 gr of gold.
That is how much gold a specific coin is specified to have in it, not
any intrinsic value of the gold itself...
So, again, what is gold's intrinsic worth, if using that word will get
you off your tangent?
>>>>> Yes Dan, gold does have an "intrinsic value".
>>>> says some random web site. I can see why your education has been so
>>>> sadly neglected: you are easily duped.
>>> Now this is comedy...Dan declares that the US Mint is "some random web
>>> site", when it comes to an understanding of the value of coinage.
>> Laugh away, you still haven't answered the question. That website
>> conflates "intrinsic" and "bullion," which merely separates the declared
>
> No, they gave an (incomplete) definition of intrinsic value, in
> reference to bullion. A common usage, appropriate to your question.
>
>> numismatic value from the market value of the coinage metal. I was
>> using a different meaning of the word intrinsic" meaning a property held
>> by the metal itself. Some intrinsic properties of gold are its
>> ductility, resistance to corrosion, and conductivity.
>>
>> And I ask again, what is the intrinsic value of gold?
>
> What is the intrinsic value of a paper 10 dollar bill? How
> is it different than the intrinsic value of a paper 100 dollar bill?
Each thing mentioned: a $100 paper bill, a $10 paper bill, $10, and a
$10 gold coin all have the exact same intrinsic worth: zero.
Let me give you an extreme example so it will be difficult for you to
misconstrue for argument's sake: what is the gold content of the sun
worth today? Not potential worth, but actual worth this very instant?
It is worth exactly zero, yet it is still gold... Worth is a concept of
humans, not of the stuff itself. Position and state matter a lot, as do
a whole slew of other conditions. Coins are used for the exact reason
that gold in any other state is harder to value and use. Yet various
forms of currency far predate coins, and money predates all forms of
currency (debts were carried in people's heads, important debts may have
been carried in additional people's heads as witnesses, long before
writing even existed).
> (an old English major friend of mine loved to point out that first the
> item had to first be rendered down to its base metals... ;)
Not even sure what that was about...
>>>>> It also has "intrinsic
>>>>> properties", for example electrical properties:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.virginia.edu/bohr/mse209/chapter19.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> (what does Dan think "intrinsic" means?)
>>>> Yawn. Intrinsic means an attribute or property of the material itself.
>>> Yes Dan, I'm glad that you finally looked up the meaning of the word.
>> Um, Skippy, that is the meaning >>I<< used all along. Note I did not
>> claim it meant something else (as you did, above) when it was
>> convenient. ONE of us had to look it up, and, gee whiz, it weren't me...
>
> I have used the same meaning all along, Dan.
As have I...
>> Now that we have finally settled on a meaning...
I'm still using my original meaning, which is appropriate, though I have
added a second term since you are being inflexible.
>>> But let us recall that you claimed that NOTHING had an intrisic value.
>>> Indeed, you now admit that EVERYTHING has intrinsic values.
>> So, you can point out where, in the text above, I make that claim.
>
> Dan: "Yawn. Intrinsic means an attribute or property of the material
> itself."
Yes, and? Please continue on to make the connections you think are there.
> Clearly all materials have properties, many of them quantified, and/or
> quantifiable.
Yes, yes.
> Now from a semantic standpoint, it is possible that "nothingness" also
> has intrinsic values (presumably you would be talking about vacuum of
> space -- though it's not really "nothingness") -- but this does not
> appear to be what you intended to say.
>
> But everything else certainly has such value(s).
The very fact that I used the singular indicates that your
interpretation is incorrect, as you just demonstrated.
So, I ask again: what is THE intrinsic value of gold? What is the
intrinsic worth of gold? If all human beings were gone, and no sentient
being is present, what is the value of a small lump of gold? What is
the value of a lump of gold at the center of the moon?
If you would stop your semantic prancing about avoidance behavior and
just look at the question, we could get somewhere.
>>>> So, Mr. Expert, exactly what is gold's "intrinsic value?" You
>>> Gold's intrinsic value(s) is(are) the value(s) of the metal that
>>> constitutes the coin.
>> And a red car is red. Tautologies are not helpful.
>
> You are asking "what color is a red car?"
No, you are stating that a red car is red. Don't put your misstatements
off on me.
>>> The intrinsic value for density is: 19.30g/cm^3
>>> The intrinsic value for metling point is: 1064.18 �C
>>> The intrinsic value for resistivity is: 22.14 n-ohm-m (@20 �C)
>> OK, you are using a different meaning of the word "value," a magnitude
>> or quantity. A reasonable interpretation.
>>
>> I am using the meaning "worth." That explains some of the confusion.
>
> Yes, you are groping toward the question of "what is the commodity
> trade rate for gold versus other commodities".
Um, no, I am not. I am trying to get you to understand what the concept
"intrinsic" means...
> A known quantity of gold has a certain trade value. Paper also has a
> certain trade value. Used paper generally has a lower trade value
> than un-used paper (making used greenbacks an anomaly... ;).
>
> The trade rate for various commodities is driven by supply and demand.
> Gold is a rather stable commodity, being mined at a fairly constant
> rate, consumed at a fairly constant rate, and being recycled at a
> fairly constant rate (recovered from "consumed" uses -- say,
> electronics).
>
> Corn, wheat, tree leaves and the like are far more volatile for trade
> rates, being subject to seasonal/yearly variations in availability
> (search for "leaf" ;):
>
> http://www.movieprop.com/tvandmovie/reviews/hitchhikersguide.htm
>
> A commodity is "worth" whatever others are willing to trade for it --
> nothing more, nothing less.
Exactly, they have NO intrinsic worth (which is what I have been trying
to get you to admit for several posts now).
> If no-one wants your commodity, it will have little or no trade value.
>
> This happened in American history, where a paper dollar traded
> one-for-one with a silver dollar in one year, and the very next year
> the trade rate was $1000 paper dollars per silver dollar.
>
> This is the basis of the phrase "as worthless as a continental".
Yep, and is the problem in several African nations today, and Germany in
the early 30s. That is also why DeBeers held a monopoly on diamonds for
all those many years, to artificially inflate the price. The same thing
happened in gold mining towns until the advent of the automobile (and
still happens in areas inhospitable to automobiles). Time is money -
the time spent transporting the gold to a place to use it is included in
the price of materials...
People did not trust the paper currency, for various reasons, so it
became a poor monetary token.
> http://www.coins.nd.edu/ColCurrency/FAQ/cc-notesinfo.html
>
>>>> (HINT: you might want to look up the word "value" before you make a fool
>>>> of yourself misanswering the question).
>>> Hint, YOU might want to look up the word "value" before you make a
>>> fool of yourself (oops, too late).
>> So, my point is proven. Words often have more than one reasonable
>> interpretation. That is why legislation takes time and lawyers, to
>> attempt to get the meaning specific and correct.
>
> Lawyers may play word games, but they are unable to create a demand
> for a product, if no-one wants it.
>
> Gold, silver, platinum, corn, wheat, oats and many other commodities
> are useful to people, and thus have a market, regardless of a lawyer
> attempting to declare that a piece of paper is "ten dollars".
>
>> However, you stretched things a bit to get from a simple "intrinsic
>> values" to "measured values for intrinsic properties."
>
> A value is a numerical quantity, usually measured or assigned.
>
> Dan:"Intrinsic means an attribute or property of the material itself."
>
> So, an "intrinsic value" is a quantified attribute or property of the
> material itself.
>
> In the case of the Eagle, discussed above, one such quantified
> property is that it contains 247.5 gr of pure gold.
>
> Clearly the market determines the trade rate for this commodity, not
> the Congress.
Still dancing the semantic rumba, I see. Oh well.
>> Be that as it may, and the SCOTUS does take these possible
>> interpretations and intended meanings into account, and we are, in the
>> final analysis, dependent on 9 people in dresses to declare, to the best
>> of their majority-rule opinions, what the Constitution and the laws
>> mean, and whether there is a conflict between a law and the
>> Constitution.
>
> Or, as they often do, they just make shit up as they go, to support
> their political biases...
Same thing.
>>>>>> worth what the government says it is worth (or what you can get in trade
>>>>>> for it), otherwise gold is worth what you can get in trade for it like
>>>>>> any other material.
>>>>> No, you are only partially correct. Gold is only worth what you can
>>>>> trade for it -- and this may be driven by what industrial or artistic
>>>>> uses you may find for it. Those are 2 reasons why gold continues to
>>>>> be a valuable metal.
>>>> But, but, but, but, up above you claimed gold had an "intrinsic value."
>>>> If the value changes by what people desire, then...
>
> Again, you're trying to impose a commodity trade rate.
I impose nothing.
> The market set that trade rate, based on supply and demand.
Soylent Green, er, a market is people. People set the value of
commodities. They have no intrinsic value.
>>> Gold does have an intrinsic value -- many intrinsic values, in fact.
>> Well, kind of... I think you will find, if you were truly honest, that
>> you had to stretch things quite a bit to shoehorn the definition you
>> settled on into the context of my writings. That old Occam's Razor
>> would not be kind your your attempt, I would guess.
>
> Not at all. I never claimed that gold had a fixed commodity trade
> rate with other commodities. Only that it has known intrinsic
> value(s). People in the marketplace know what gold is, and will
> determine what they are willing to trade for it.
So, you admit gold has no intrinsic value. Thanks. We might get some
where now.
> Paper has little trade value, when not supported by FAITH. What
> practical use does a wrinkled, smelly piece of paper have, anyway?
Depends entirely on what someone will give you for it, the same as a
shiny new gold coin...
> This is what happens when the commodity known as "paper money" is not
> linked to a tangible commodity:
>
> http://www.cato.org/zimbabwe
No, that has nothing to do with what the currency is made of, but how
much currency is available. Scarcity is one attribute of a good
currency material: in the case of paper currency the pattern on its
surface identifies it as other than just paper. The fact that, for
whatever reason, the government "printed up" too much currency is the
problem.
A scarce commodity as the basis of currency has its own problems: it
cannot support an expanding economy.
Neither is perfect, each does what it does.
Capitalism cannot survive with commodity money. In the early years, it
muddled along with new sources of gold and silver stolen from other
people (the age of exploration and colonialism). Those sources of
expansion are no more. As you say, the amount of new gold pretty much
equals the new industrial uses found for it. Whee would the new capital
be for economic expansion? Notice also that, under the gold standard,
depressions were quite common (periodicity around a generation or
twentyish years), ending with the Great (Worldwide) Depression. The
linkage of the liberal democracies' economies made sure that the era of
old money (gold standard) died an excruciating and painful death.
I find it interesting that the most fervent junior Capitalists also have
a naive faith in a gold standard currency... Makes no sense.
> It is also instructive to read about the history of the Weimar
> Republic inflationary problem.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GermanyHyperChart.jpg
Read it.
>>>>> Likewise with silver, platinum, diamonds and other jewels...
>>>> Now why did you clip the context?
>>> Dan apparently wishes to assert that silver and platinum do not have
>>> instrinsic values.
>> Wow! Did you figure that out yourself, or did you just guess?
>
> You can look up known instrinsic values for silver and platinum.
True, but THE intrinsic value of silver and platinum is zero. The
intrinsic value of the molten iron in the earth's core is also zero (for
just one more extreme and hard to misinterpret example).
> These metals, as all other useful metals, also have a trade rate with
> other commodities.
Yep.
>>> James Madison, Federalist 44:
>>> "No one of these mischiefs is less incident to a power in the States
>>> to emit paper money, than to coin gold or silver. The power to make
>>> any thing but gold and silver a tender in payment of debts, is
>>> withdrawn from the States, on the same principle with that of issuing
>>> a paper currency."
>> Jimmy apparently didn't really understand money. He did understand the
>> problem with governments of the time, and we were embarking on a grand
>> experiment, so I guess we should not fault him for being a bit
>> conservative under the circumstances.
>
> A large fraction of the men involved "apparently didn't really
> understand money",
True enough. They also did not understand electricity, nuclear fusion,
or a whole host of other things. Doesn't make them any less impressive
for what they DID understand.
> since they voted overwhelmingly against allowing paper money.
That may or may not be, but they did not vote against it in the
Constitution.
>> frustrations. On virtually every issue, there were champions on many
>> sides. What we need to concern ourselves with are the words that were
>> finally agreed upon, and even then there is much room for interpretation.
>
> But as a body, they knew quite well that paper money was apt to be "as
> worthless as a Continental".
They knew a lot of things that were not true. They are no different
than people today.
>> That is why I like to challenge firmly held beliefs based on
>> single-minded interpretations. Some things I do know, other things I
>> merely wish to point out that alternatives are both possible, and
>> perhaps better or more practical.
>
> Practical is gold and silver certificates -- promissory notes, backed
> by actual metal, which may be traded for metal upon demand; notes
> which are offered as a convenience, but not required to be used by the
> people.
That is one of the least practical media to use as currency, actually.
> Fraud is unfunded paper, which is printed as quickly as possible,
> watering the milk, increasing the available quantity, and reducing the
> trade rate with other commodities (aka inflation).
Hey, YOU are the Capitalist. I'm just the messenger.
> Such inflation benefits debt holders. The largest debt holder is the
> US government. The entity printing surplus (counterfeit) money is the
> US government.
As I said, convince about 165 million people, and make whatever change
you see fit.
>>>> I'll tell you what. You get 165 Million people to buy what you're
>>>> selling, and I will change my tune. Deal?
>>> Madison's fine essay in Federalist #10 explains why the United States
>>> does not emabrace your desired government.
>> Yet it is what we have now. So, again, get your troops together and we
>> can talk.
>
> Madison:
> "...ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been
> found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property;
> and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been
> violent in their deaths."
>
>>> But theoretic politicans and totalitarians like yourself patronize
>>> this species of government.
>> Point out where I have ever given you cause to name me such.
>
> Dan: "I'll tell you what. You get 165 Million people to buy what
> you're selling, and I will change my tune. Deal?"
>
> The road to democracy is ultimately the road to totalitarianism.
>
> That is why we are a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.
hen I guess you better start convincing 9 people in dresses to destroy
our economy.
>> Seems to me that you are the theoretician who tries to politic based on
>> a flawed understanding of human interactions.
>
> No, I am an originalist. If the meaning of law changes, then it
> cannot be known (e.g. Federalist #62) -- if it cannot be known, it
> cannot be law. (and thus, our obscene federal code...)
>
> Retief
I guess you will just have to continue to be a grumpy old man, then.
Personally, I try not to perseverate on things over which I have no control.
Good luck. And do some reading about money, you are quite uneducated on
the subject.
Dan
Dan
> Crom...but I love watching an intelligent man at work, cutting bits of
> floppy flesh loose from the ever decreasing carcass of a
> Leftwinger...the talent, the grace, the style as he works..is art...true
> art.
Obviously you were not reading the snipped text, then. Hell, it is
pretty obvious you don't even read this newsgroup.
But, in your fantasy world, you ARE King...
> Sigh....
Sigh, indeed.
HH&C
> Crom...but I love watching an intelligent man at work, cutting bits of
> floppy flesh loose from the ever decreasing carcass of a
> Leftwinger...the talent, the grace, the style as he works..is art...true
> art.
>
> Sigh....
>
> Gunner
Dan is looking like a blowfish reduced to sushi.
Dan
Yawn. I see your reading comprehension skills are no better than
Retief's and Runner's. Don't you people get tired of being taken out to
the woodshed and thrashed time after time?
Dan
Dan
Or, if you had bought into the Dow30, you would have over $14,000...
That is a mere 6.3% return (including a loss, in 1933, of nearly 30%).
That is quite a mortgage payment...
Dan
HH&C
I don't recall that ever happening, but you've been filetted.
Strabo
$100 in a stock portfolio in 1932 would get you $14,000 today? That
doesn't seem right. Did that include splits and reinvestment?
Dan
The Dow was 71 on October 4, 1932 (arbitrary date). The Dow is 10,500
and change today.
You do the math...
Dan
Dan
Not by the likes of you...
Dan
Retief
Dan, Dan, Dan...And it seemed that you were so close to
understanding... But nay...
>>> Hmmm. X amount of gold is worth Y dollars. Nope, that is not setting
>>> the value of gold. Nosiree.
>>
>> Yes Dan, they have set the value in the engineering sense -- they have
>> specified that a given coin would have a certain gold content, and
>> thus guaranteed that it will have a given intrinsic value (weight,
>> purity, and other properties).
>
>They also set a DOLLAR value,which is exactly what they were tasked to do...
If you mean that defining a dollar to be 247.5 gr gold, that is
correct. If you mean that they "set" it in any other way, that is
nonsense.
Also note that they said "dolllars or units" -- they didn't CARE if
you called it a "dollar", only that it contained 247.5 gr. gold.
>> So Dan, what is the intrinsic value of a paper 10 dollar bill?
>
>The same as a $10 gold piece: nothing.
Dan states: "Yawn. Intrinsic means an attribute or property of the
material itself."
So Dan, there is clearly no longer any point in discussing this with
you. You are unable to even accept YOUR OWN DEFINITION. You have
just rejected that a $10 gold piece has an numerically quantifiable
property.
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=value
1) value (a numerical quantity measured or assigned or computed) "the
value assigned was 16 milliseconds"
So here Dan rejects that a $10 gold piece has any attributes or
properties, or Dan rejects that $10 (or 247.5 gr. gold) are numerical
quantities -- or Dan rejects both.
>To acquire a value, it needs a human emotion to attach a value to it.
Nonsense. Can you really be this stupid? Oh yes, I see that you can
you can...
So Dan's argument can reduced to a claim that "defining a $10 gold
piece does not assign a numerical quantity to it". Likewise, "a coin
containing 247.5 gr. gold is no numerical quantity measured or
assigned to it."
The rest of Dan's drooling troll-dom snipped unread.
Retief