WHY YOU ARE A SLAVE TO BANKERS
by James Jaeger

Chances are if you live to 85 you wont leave an inheritance for the next generation you will leave a debt!

This is because the banks have siphoned off this technological progress with fiat currency.

As tech makes it easier to produce products, there ARE more products out there. All should be good, and getting better for all. If the products of the world out strip the population growth of the world, everyone should have more products to aid them in the mission of survival, no matter what those products are.

But what happens is this. The bankers know that if the supply of products grew and they did not grow the money supply, the purchasing power of each unit of money would increase. Fewer dollars chasing more products. If the purchasing power of the world's monetary units increased, the banksters would have no justification for printing up yet more money. This would thus deny them their methodology of stealing from the productive public through inflation, a hidden tax.

So what the bankers do is this: every time a savvy techy makes a new computer or writes a new program that enables the society to make more, better products using fewer resources, the banksters print up enough money to neutralize the excess production created. In other words, they increase the money supply as the product supply increases.

How are they able to do this?

They are able to do this because they have suckered the public into a meme that's simply not true. This meme says that you have to increase the money supply commensurate with the increase in the product supply in order to maintain price stability. In deed this is the stated mission of the Federal Reserve System: 'maintaining price stability through an elastic currency.' I have paraphrased, but go to their site and have a look.

But here's the problem.

When the banking elite prints up the new money "justified" by the do-gooder claim of maintaining price stability, WHO gets to use the new money first? Well, here's who. The people who are physically closest to the US Treasury (Washington DC) and high in priority in the government's budget. And who claims to have the highest claims in the government's budget? Obviously the immediate employees of the government -- the President, the Congress, the Supreme Court (and their tens of thousands of staffs and assistants) but also everyone in the Pentagon AND all the multinational corporations that the Pentagon contracts to manufacture and maintain its weapons. So, all of THESE people (the "elites") get use of the newly-printed Federal Reserve Notes right as they come off the press.

Then what happens?

As all this new fiat currency floods into the above elites' coffers, these people go out and buy new wardrobes, new cars, new furniture, new houses, new boats, new jets, new islands, et cetera AND they get all these items at the PRE-inflation prices. Why? Because, as their money floods through the economy, it drives the cost of all of the above cited items UP. The new money in circulation is so plentiful, it devalues the purchasing power of all the previous money in circulation. More money chasing fewer products. This means it thus takes WE THE PEOPLE more Federal Reserve Notes to buy OUR wardrobes, new cars, new furniture, new houses, new boats, new jets, and new islands, et cetera. So WE lose to the elite that prints and uses the new fiat currency. The premium we must pay in order to enjoy the same standard of living as the elites operates like a TAX. This is why inflation is a hidden tax. This is how and why THEY LIVE.(1)

So this is how you're being screwed. This is how they live. This is how your PRODUCTIVITY -- your new computer tech and programs -- are getting siphoned off by the elites that surround the banks (as Jefferson warned).(2) This is why your wages have not risen since 1971, why your wife must now work, why college tuition is ridiculously high, why you have no health insurance, maxed out credit cards, $4 gasoline, monopolistic Internet service providers and why you drive an old car and rent. In sort, this is why you are an economic slave in this scum activity called "life." Is it any wonder so many, who don't understand what's happened to them, pick up guns and blow the shit of anyone they can place a bead on?(3)


---------------------------
(1) Click to view link

(2) Thomas Jefferson once said: "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies . . . If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] . . . will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered . . . The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." -- Thomas Jefferson, The Debate Over The Recharter Of The Bank Bill, (1809)

(3) If you don't know what I mean, watch a little movie I made in 2006 called FIAT EMPIRE. It's at http://youtu.be/5K41O2QfpjA

dave jr, thanx for wells wished. Affirmations are a really good part of the balanced process.

Agent Revolver comes out and says it chrome platedly, cool enough to freeze vodka.

Meanwhile the site/thread/topic deserves the focus rather than the specific actors.

Please continue with gusto...

Much

Agent Revolver,

If you have something to say, why not say it?

Agent Pete 8,

Your link took me to a place that I was not referring to, but was considering the gaming nature of heddinout. amfm laid to rest any suspicion of a covert opertion.

I saw a pattern of style, was curious, and asked a question. Curiosity can kill the cat and also make him annoying. I hope you know I have no malicious intent.

I wish you well.

What's the beauty of being a DB reader?

If you need to correct your post, there is no need to search for "Edit" button when you post. Just address the Mod, like this.

"Dear Moderator,

01/15/13 03:54 AM I've posted Agent Weebley's link. It's left in my cache.
But the Youtube video link in _my_ post should be http://youtu.be/YaA0NwA0NiQ .

Be God on your Cloud. Put the above link instead. Thank you, you are doing great job."

Hi Everyone,

It's really troublesome for Cutters, and for Divers as well (-: , to follow the paths of Casters because of mud that their self-respective grunting clientele has left after themselves. Luckily there are places where a better hopes for the best. Luckily, it's #1's SuperHyperRadioProActivity that points at the dry spots here and there.

So hot they are!

And yes, even a hundred bits packet of sense at ARG MetaPhoria is packed in a pocket to rocket the racket to Hackett to back it to rocket to pocket... yours. Just trying to speak metaphorically.

I believe that's why we tend to post so many Youtube videos (-:

Ah. Offtop. Talk about Gold and its Great Mystery. OK, IT's @1:44.

Click to view link

----
|POST|
----

Hi Agent Pete 8,

This is the only place I can speak to you right how, since I am in the future . . . a nice Cuckoo Cocoon here at The Daily Bell, I would say.

Something real solid is going to happen on boards.ie soon . . . I can feel it. Maybe everyone will carry on as if nothing is there . . . or is it me just feeling some needles and pins . . .

Click to view link

And I'm really enjoying [em]your[/em] posts too!

Hi everyone,

I'm really sorry that I've barely responded to you all since Christmas. It's nothing personal, but when you guys (and gals) all speak, it makes me think . . . a lot . . . and replying is sometimes difficult . . . you all make my mind go a mile a minute. But everything you all say is always taken on board.

And thank you so much, Ingo, for confirming my theory about gold backed paper as currency. I had temporarily suspended your "given" that definitions of money and currency are separate terms in your mind. Everyone's been unduly hard on you on this thread, but your premise really comes down gold as being a reflection of "honesty." I know you mean well, and your heart is in the right place, but to you, gold is the only "physical" honesty.

Click to view link

Our premise is that only a "group of people" that need to be honest.

Mental honesty.

Currently, that list is short. We have, through much steganographic chatter, discovered 4 ego-less people . . . amanfromMars, Agent Pete 8, Agent Revolver and myself. And all of us came together on The Daily Bell. This group could be much larger, if only more people were to join our "mental headspace." It will happen. The group began as one - amanfromMars, then expanded to 2 - me, then 3 - Agent Pete 8, then 4 - Agent Revolver. We are steganographically vetted by the existing group, and if any one of us were to "go rogue," that person would be reigned back in . . . or eventually ejected.

And thanks for stopping by boards.ie a while back, Ingo. It thoroughly freaked them out: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81045612&postcount=66

The main reason I am posting right now, is that the strangest thing has just happened . . .

To put it briefly, I connected what my daughter, Nerfy, posted yesterday: Click to view link

. . . with what dave jr posted here today (01/14/13 01:47 PM) about our ARG MetaPhoria being a "dissociative identity."

That dual definition term: "dissociative," got me thinking about a more finely tuned explanation of our site.

The premise of our site is help facilitate a better life for the 7 billion of us living here, as well as the infinite number of people not really living here right now, but having a profound effect on 'the living' in subtle ways.

Our site is Fractal.

While searching for an explanation of our site's goal, I found a nice tight clip . . . Agent Pete 8's suggested "hive mind" clip of Loren C Carpenter's 1991 groupthink decision making process: Click to view link

. . . leading me to Benoit Mandelbrot: Click to view link

And since I am half English, half Irish, half Canadian, and half MetaPhorian, you will have to hear the rest someplace else, as I could go on forever and wear out my welcome here!

I still may be in Wormhole 7: Click to view link

In reply to you, Taxesbyanothername, I did, We should, No rush mate, make the most of your time, dont worry, but be 'open to the opportunities', in the how spaces you see can be filled.

dave jr, that is a very interesting question possibly more appropriately worded:

Humanity is smothered by a cocoon of dissociative identity, trained by sustained abuse.
Click to view link

Some people get used to being abused, I still haven't, even after 48 years.

Wow Agent Weeble sorry dude, missed your recent posts as I was using an 8" screen. Hi!

Re-reading all of it from the beginning now...

Pete

From your earlier post I guessed that you lived way up north on the Coromandel. Perhaps we'll meet someday, though I doubt that it will be anytime soon. Can't leave here while my mom's still around. Also, we have got to stuff that codex back in the box somehow.

Guess I'm to old for y'all. Can't even count how many times and ways you lost me.

Fair enough. thankyou amfm.

"Is heddinout a cocoon of dissociative identity? Just whundren." ….. Posted by dave jr on 01/14/13 01:47 PM

Probably, whenever necessary, although it is nothing to be unduly worried about unless one be up to no good in fields which are not controlled or controllable with physical force and the thoughts of intellectually bankrupt earthed beings, dave jr.

Is heddinout a cocoon of dissociative identity? Just whundren.

"One of the biggest features of a "Great Deception" is that it is can easily be holed and sunk from any side, under the Light." …. Posted by Agent Pete 8 on 01/14/13 01:53 AM

Talking of a "Great Deception", is this ongoing one imploding nicely and identifying leading lights for the attention of the masses/anonymous lone wolves/abused and ill-used special force characters? …… Click to view link

And to quote the last paragraph of that Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone article ….. "Other than that, the bailout was a smashing success."

Also, please consider how a truly, shared mantle of power between All, will eventually see any sub-group, as deficient, divisory, and guilty of missing the wider reach/acceptance needed to sustain such for All.

Yep IT's a bit of a mindbender, but hey, that is exactly what we need to change direction and find All the safer routes?

What really is your 'Brand', peer2peerable peeps, in relation to that Real and Sing-ularous Crowd?

Is anyone here wanting to invest/assist in something worthwhile and meaningful, without a specifically financially-vectored fast-buck return?

Perhaps Free Market Advancement can better be implemented/sustained/protected by a group/process/protocol and the wholer ideas that open shared agreement systems and their mandates bring.

Worded Weightless Way.

Thanks for that Taxesbyanothername, Milford Bay area is great, and just 25 minutes drive from me. with good snapper fishing too.

What I was about to type before nearly running out of e-juice, was about the notion of money/gold/apples/oranges being the 'best exchange' medium between people, is rather incomplete, when clearly the advantages of working the rest of the universe in to the plan, leaves a better result, eg environment (the real one, not the fake Carbon scam/hallucination.)

This cannot and will not be acheived by a Govt, or any miniscule subset microcosmic Clique, as they lack the Intelligence, skill and posture to see around that many corners.

The term 'Social Capital' hints at this vast, relatively untapped, increasingly-repressed 'shared resource'.

I do fear that term (social capital) may still be misunderstood as commie-speak. Need a better word/term please anyone?

Imagine though, a dual-factored currency, where there is a traditional money 'vector' and social/insert-better-word vector.

Go a step further, a massively multi-timbral post-cartesian space of values, and two-way tappable values.

Sound impossible? Not, fortunately and thanks to IT's ability to remove the temporal and interpersonal sticking points an individual finds when the going gets tough, in a discussion.

I would like to think that this articles' run of comments, shows clearly how the immediacy and pressures of sharing ideas delivers vulnerable humans, with egos and aspirations, to a less than productive place.

Technology and IT's Wizards have the important role now in facilitating a peaceful, lasting serias of confabs about, hmmm anything.

... including economics, or perceptions thereof.

That requires a more open philosophy, having capacity of acceptance of All others views.

The temporal convenience of email, for example, allows for de-fusing the time-pressure to create a better, more considered response.

The DB forums would be much different if it was via the old IRC chat, with everything said by all appearing on screen to immediately push the previous post along. Truly Scary, and past experience suggests - cliquey and repellant.

Remove the temporal immediacy/pressure and get more considered thoughts and words, less conflict.

There is a way, actually at least 7Billion+ ways, to re-draw the entire board game on which we depend so much.

Or do you still believe the meme that most people disagree on most things.

So my 'thing' is less about money-control or non, and more about a lasting platform assisting our interchanges of 'any' shared resources.

New Game: Rock Paper Scissors Aqua
(Hint: Aqua always wins.)

You read it here at the Daily Bell today.

Pretty cool Pete.

I was considering moving down there, till the food bill. I'll be planting some kiwis in April, the smooth ones, too cold here for the big ones. More partial to the cold lonely than you I guess. Was thinking Milford Bay or thereabouts.

Those cloisters are less shielded all the time. Still Red and Rocky though.

The problem stems from cloistered, unseen acts and actors operating the shared medium like it all belongs to them.

Remove consent due to 'deception', and it all falls away, fast.

Requirement to prove their wild claims falls back on the scammer.

Yes Kiwis are mostly mellow, but they do know how to stand up against idiots, when they can spot them.

Gold is like poop to me, having been a part of the successful 1980s/90s stand against gold mining in our beautiful Coromandel Peninsula.

'We' drove Barack Mining Pty Aust away from there, 20 million down, a shared success.

Gold/Money not always valued as some DB'ers do, some things are more important, seen over time vs quick buckery.

And our beautiful world-famous beaches are still relatively clean. Kids approved such investiture of non-money recently when we went to Tairua

'Value' is not necessarily a mathematical/financial concept: EG soak up this:

Click to view link

So if it is a shared resource with a gazillion facets to manage/monitor, then it's oversight needs to be shared as wwwidely as possible, between a gazillion 'watchers'.

Then you have a shared success system, with weight of consent to move forwards on most issues. If the system uses massively-shared language as its competetive basis, then it avoids the disease of mind-numbingly mathematical knowledge assymetry that ails most of us now.

One of the biggest features of a "Great Deception" is that it is can easily be holed and sunk from any side, under the Light.

More later - battery nearly flat.

@ Weebly

WEEBLY: "Either way, Gold is pretty cool to look at, but there just isn't enough of it around to store for spending when one reaches old age."

BISCHOFF: You don't actually save physical gold. You invest your redeemable currency in gold bonds. When they mature, you get back gold. In the meantime, you earn as a minimum 2.5% to 3% per annum (the natural interest rate).

@Weebly

WEEBLY: "Why not trade with Real Gold instead?"

BISCHOFF: That's when you turn gold into currency, which does not work. Gold is a lousy currency. I just explained that... ...

Hi Weebles
You didn't stop the thread, it has run over long as has the time. You don't seem mad but I must dispute bankers being bonkers. They know exactly what they are doing to us. Besides bonkers is funny and bankers are $%^*(&^%$.

Pete's post was wonderful but they are overly polite way down there, which is of course why he didn't include Kiwis in the salad.

If there really were a $trillion coin you couldn't carry it in your hand. You couldn't even carry it in a Terex Titan. If you could, might as well digitalize it like the rest.

Oh my, I seem to have done it again! Why does thread stopping seem to be my specialty, or if in the UK: speciality? Hopefully it will self-heal soon.

I loved your post, by the way, Agent Pete 8. You can catch me if you can in Wormhole 7 . . . this is way too much fun to come home right now!

Deliver . . . the . . . message . . . do you understand?

Wormhole 7: Click to view link

Man this thread and your answers are quick tonight! I missed Agent Pete 8's response, and your 2nd response. HI, AGENT PETE 8!

Are you suggesting that we legislate bankers to be honest?

And are you also suggesting that people save for their old age using Gold or paper scrip based on Gold?

Either way, Gold is pretty cool to look at, but there just isn't enough of it around to store for spending when one reaches old age.

Did you read anything else I wrote?

I'm completely mad, you know.

Hi Ingo,

But bankers are bonkers! I don't trust a banker to hold his urine, let alone hold my Gold and give me a piece of paper instead.

And your Real Bills are just scrip. Why not trade with Real Gold instead?

@ Weebly

WEEBLY: "Ingo . . . there are too many people on this planet for gold to be used as a medium of exchange."

BISCHOFF: I couldn't agree with you more. Gold makes for a lousy medium of exchange. The shortage of gold does not allow gold to circulate as currency. That problem has been accute for at least 250 years. That's why George Clymer and Benjamin Franklin, among others, founded The Philadelphia Bank in 1750 to create the Pennsylvania Pound against Bills of Exchange.

Read Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations". You'll find the Pennsylvania Pound mentioned in there for the consistancy of keeping its value, even without a redemption requirement. In those days, bankers had honor. They would never create currency against non-existing Real Bills. There was never any concern that the The Philadelphia Bank would not redeem its currency for specie.

By sharply containing its circulation, it was the British Parliament which in the end killed the Pennsylvania Pound, and thereby destroyed the prosperity it had bought the American colonies. This more than anything else led to the American Revolution.

However, gold is not necessary for use as currency. 90% of currency is used to house and maintain oneself. These transactions can easily be cleared with Real Bills or the paper currency created against them. Only generally 10% of the currency is set aside as savings. It is there were gold is needed.

It is the superiority of gold as a store of value which is ideal for savings. With a redeemable currency, people can save for old age.

With a "managed" currency, which we have had since 1935, people need "Social Security" (created in 1935) to survive in old age.

Just a suggestory note on the collegial decorum we find here at the DB, and the textual habits of those ramming their barrow(s) so passionately in the face of others;

Folks who SHOUT the words THEY wish to EMPHASISE, paragraph after PARAGRAPH, usually reach my deaf side, knowing they lack consideration for others.

Like the hard-baked comments typicallly seen at Infowars, or Puffington Host, where many choose to capitally punish other readers with such shoutiness.

I think it is a symptom of feeling they are not being heard, but also of not accepting the reality that others think and operate differently, and the process of realisation takes time - to grow.

Perhaps it is more grammatically correct, and polite/considerate/accepting that "emphasis" can be simply quoted; 'single' or "double".

Then they wouldn't manifest like hysterical rabid AIPAC-style manipulatrices, rather appearing as someone who could be invited to dinner, without upsetting the other guests.

Mint anyone, or is it time for pudding?

P.S. I like the idea of a fruit salad of currencies available anywhere: Apples, Oranges, Bananas...

@ Weebly

WEBLEY: "You would want to give them paper scrip, so you could resolve the debt at the end by not giving away your gold."

BISCHOFF: The paper currency I propose to be restored uses Real Bills and gold held by banks against which they create a REDEEMABLE paper currency. As such it carries the value standard of gold, hence the name gold standard currency.

Real Bills are 90-day non-credit, negotiable, commercial instruments. When they mature, the currency exspires.(It has to do with Real Bills being clearing instruments, not credit loans.) Therefore, RBD currency will never be inflationary.

Hi Ingo, taxesbyanyothername, and tonight's Mod Squad [solid modding, real solid modding, by the way] . . . and now some recent additions: bionic mosquito and pauloportugal.

I think I am going to have to get Politenessman to whip out his steel hankie and let it rip!

The Trillion Dollar Coin, with roughly the same current face value as gold, is still a debt instrument. Anyone holding one would ask themselves . . .

'What is this I hold in my hand? Something the US Gov gave me must be able to purchase something in USD . . . ' And then one day, when you least expect it, they will come a knocking and buy whatever assets the $1T coin will buy them at that time.

The real issue is not so much the debt and paying it off, but the huge quantity of money and electronic money, e.g.: $1.2 Quadrillion ($1200T) on investors' balance sheets as derivatives. The recent money printing of another $15T, which is sitting on the bankers' balance sheets, is also disconcerting . . . all that free money they got due to a shell game they pulled from 2001 - 2007.

I never got any.

Money is like holding stock. If you have a share split, then the shareholders get the split, not some bankers! That's bonkers! Sorry, I could not resist calling bankers bonkers.

If any of that vast quantity of money ever goes on the market at a high rate of speed to buy up US assets, or anything where the USD is accepted as payment, then all hell will break loose on upward price movement - too much money chasing too few goods.

A tiny US GDP of $15T puts it in perspective.

It's pretty obvious that people that create money are playing games with money, and they use the balance sheet to do it. The balance sheet is where that huge amount of money sits, tax free.

Now we come to Ingo and his 'gold as money' . . . Ingo, how come you want to print paper based on the gold you have? I know exactly why . . . the same reason my 5oz will not be used for exchange unless that is the last asset I have . . . it would take a lifetime to get it back if I used it to buy something. I own 5oz, which is 6.66 times the 0.75oz that we would each have, if it were distributed equally to 7 billion people. Most people hold no gold, and would not lose their grip on it, if they got some. You would want to give them paper scrip, so you could resolve the debt at the end by not giving away your gold.

Ingo . . . there are too many people on this planet for gold to be used as a medium of exchange. It is merely a store of wealth for a few people; that is all. 0.75oz is just not enough to do all the things one wants to do in life . . . it's like running your life on just under 3 days pay!

To make a long story short, the balance sheet is where the action is. Honest money is easily produced using small amounts of paper money from a large amount of people . . . let's say 86.2 million Irish and Irish Diaspora invest $1 each . . . and viola, the fiddler would be fiddling on the roof with $86.2 TAX FREE million . . . so that the money printing and the peace process can begin.

Oh, did I mention that the money is destined for a new game? A Limited Edition Print ARG (Alternate Reality Game,) and distributed to all people for free, as a marketing and promotion tool. All completely legal, tax free (in Canada,) and endorsed by Rothschild himself, MI6, CSIS, HRH and David Cameron, although David Cameron doesn't matter so much, since he is just an elected person . . . but he does have connections.

The issue is who will be trusted to print the ARG money? That person . . . or 4 persons would have to be above reproach. And when the printer accepts the game money as payment for the print jobs, the whole thing goes Overunity . . . then the quadrillions of existing US money becomes irrelevant, along with all governments.

Click to view link

snip - - - The Fiddler is a metaphor for survival, through tradition and joyfulness, in a life of uncertainty and imbalance. - - - snip Click to view link

@ POP

POP: "POP: Both rulers and scales were market creations that widely accepted for various obvious reasons. Is it feasible, and in fact likely, that gold is the ideal form of money as selected by the market? Yes. But it is up to the market to make that determination."

BISCHOFF: Markets do not decide measuring devises. Markets exist by using measuring devices.

POP: "But to suggest that it must be standardized is incorrect."

BISCHOFF: Here I agree with von Mises, who has a very different view of gold as money from the view I hold. Yet, von Mises clearly states that without the gold standard capital valuation for financial statements to aid in longterm investment is impossible. The value of the present "managed" FRN currency as a unit of account is in constant flux, depending on the interest rate policy of the FED. Longterm capital investment is almost impossible to plan, because of its impact on amortization and depreciation schedules. It is suprising that you support such system. I am truly amazed.

POP: Bischoff saying: I don't know how I can make it any more clear to you, it is NOT I who insists on a single standard of value. IT is LOGIC. Your reply is: Whose? Yours?

BISCHOFF: See, this is what I mean. I stated that I don't insist on the standard, that it is logic which demands it. Now, you ask me whether I have a subjective logic system all my own. You really know how to subtly accuse someone of suffering from schizophrenia, don't you... ???

POP: "That's because you can't. You are filled with contradictions and are a half-witted blowhard statist loving Georgist who postulates arguments against monetary historians such as Rothbard - and when pushed admits, as you have here before, that you really hadn't read a lot of his work! But yet you profess to know "reality" and be the wise German with all the answers. Why the DB allows you and your 1960s mugshot to monopolize their forums is beyond me."

BISCHOFF: There, there... I knew it !!! You couldn't contain your veilness from slipping out. Judging from your comments, readers should have little problem to decide the kind of person you are.

I think too much of the service Tony Wile provides with the DB, evenso he and I disagree vehemently on many a subject, to answer you in kind. As I said, readers can figure out for themselves who is a half-witted blowhard, and sycophant clinging to the "Austrians". Enough said.

DB: Try to keep it civil.

BM: Agree.

Ingo

Math is the only exact science. I am sorry that you are stuck.

DB: Please don't call names. Mr. Bischoff doesn't

BM: Now DB, that just isn't true.

Click to view link

Posted by Bischoff on 02/20/12 06:17 PM

Of course, not to excuse the practice. Logic will suffice, or shutting windows to keep out the wind.

Reply from The Daily Bell

OK. No one should. Try to keep it civil.

@Bischoff

Bischoff: Is it not logical to have a standard for measuring something. We have a ruler for measuring linear distance, we have a calibrated scale for measuring weight, why can we not have a commodity whose value is serves as the measuring devise to measure the value of other goods and commodities?

POP: Both rulers and scales were market creations that widely accepted for various obvious reasons. Is it feasible, and in fact likely, that gold is the ideal form of money as selected by the market? Yes. But it is up to the market to make that determination.

Bischoff: If you do numerical accountng, you have to decide the measuring standard for your accounting system. You can convert feet to meters, or kilos to pounds, or gold standard to silver standard, but whatever you convert to, you have to be consistent in that measurement for your financials to be of use.

POP: Yes, it would seem that it only makes sense for the market to sort out consistent means of accounting. But to argue that the system of measurement must be "consistent" is foolish. Obviously in a free market where personal responsibility is embraced by the individual, whatever is considered "satisfactory" in terms of full, true and plain disclosure (assuming the reader of the financials actually cares and performs due diligence), is entirely up to the receiving party - not without consequences to the originator of the financials, naturally. But to suggest that it must be standardized is incorrect. It does not. It could develop, but the market should decide what is best today, tomorrow and so on. Kind of reminds me of the government forcing the "seatbelt" solution of the major car manufactures before THEY were ready to introduce the seatbelt option in their cars - in the name of satisfying their consumers desire for better safety. As soon as the Fedgov got involved thousands of children were unnecessarily disabled and killed as a result.

Standards should never be imposed, the market should derive whatever it feels best to satisfy the needs of the individual, community, or what have you.

Bischoff: I don't know how I can make it any more clear to you, it is NOT I who insists on a single standard of value. IT is LOGIC.

POP: Whose? Yours?

Bischoff: To argue that value is subjective, (which by the way it is not. It is utility which is subjective. That's were Menger comes in. I say no more

POP: That's because you can't. You are filled with contradictions and are a half-witted blowhard statist loving Georgist who postulates arguments against monetary historians such as Rothbard - and when pushed admits, as you have here before, that you really hadn't read a lot of his work! But yet you profess to know "reality" and be the wise German with all the answers. Why the DB allows you and your 1960s mugshot to monopolize their forums is beyond me.

Reply from The Daily Bell

Please don't call names. Mr. Bischoff doesn't.

@ Taxes

TAXES: "Locke was a smart guy but he didn't figure out everything, and the age of an axiom or practice, does not give it veracity or utility."

BISCHOFF: Quite true. However, what about logic? Is it not logical to have a standard for measuring something. We have a ruler for measuring linear distance, we have a calibrated scale for measuring weight, why can we not have a commodity whose value is serves as the measuring devise to measure the value of other goods and commodities?

Linear distance is expressed in feet or meters, but they are not the same measuring devise. Weight is expressed in kilos and pounds, but the measuring devise varies. You can express value in terms of aliquot parts of gold, or in aliquot parts of silver, but they are not the same.

If you do numerical accountng, you have to decide the measuring standard for your accounting system. You can convert feet to meters, or kilos to pounds, or gold standard to silver standard, but whatever you convert to, you have to be consistent in that measurement for your financials to be of use.

To argue that value is subjective, (which by the way it is not. It is utility which is subjective. That's were Menger comes in. I say no more) and that therefore there cannot be a fixed standard is wrong.

To argue that you can value anything in terms of gold and silver without using either as the standard is analogous to a dog chasing its tale.

@ DB

DB: "But just as we predicted, your insistence on a single market standard for money and accounting contradicts the lip service you pay to "markets." You are entirely predictable, Ingo. The more agitated you become, the longer your rebuttals get. That doesn't improve their accuracy though."

BISCHOFF: I don't know how I can make it any more clear to you, it is NOT I who insists on a single standard of value. IT is LOGIC. I am entirely predictable, because I try to use logic in presenting my point. You seem to want to fight logic in favor of your preconceptions.

My replies to you become more lengthy as I try desperately to appeal to reason. Again, and again I take the time to lay out a reasonable argument for my point hoping that I get back a reasonable counter argument. It never happens. You always seem to question my motives instead of addressing yourself to my argument.

I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that the only thing which will change your mind on the subject is reality. However, as long as the present "managed" currency is protected by a "legal tender" law, you won't have to worry that reality will come knocking.

In the meantime, I am happy to hold onto your view, and I wish you luck with yours when you have to face reality some day soon.

Reply from The Daily Bell

You are not logical; you are opinionated.

Markets do not settle things once and for always. They decide what a price should be at the moment. As soon as conditions, or what is known changes, the market's decisions may change.

Every regulation, no matter what it is, is a government saying: 'no, this is not a market.'

The relative value of silver and gold will continue to vary, and if governments will butt out, it will be no problem. It appears to me that platinum, and eventually perhaps other metals, will be coined. And if governments keep their hands off, that will still be no problem.

Locke was a smart guy but he didn't figure out everything, and the age of an axiom or practice, does not give it veracity or utility.

Setting the ratio of value between the two metals at precisely the ratio that exists in the posession of mankind is another way of saying that the total quantity of gold possesed by us is precisely equal in value to the total quantity of silver possesed by us. Since both are used as currency and jewlry, and silver has many other important uses, this seems absolute bunk to me. Industrial use of silver has brought the ratio down to about ten to one. In a SHFT situation, which we may very well soon have over major portions of the globe, silver's use as a water purifier will make it even more valuable compared to gold than it is now.

This suggests to me that without manipulation of the markets, and gold priced as it is now, that silver should be over $200/Oz. Now. The huge discrepancy between the actual situation and that last also suggests to me that the price of both of them has less to do with standards, or honest market decisions, than disinformation and timed buys and sells by those manipulating the price of both metals. This is probably at least as large a theft as the libor manipulation.

@ DB

DB: "As predicted, Ingo. You insist on a single standard that "everyone will follow." It as if you are not at all familiar with F.A. Hayek and the idea of spontaneous organization. Yes, there CAN be more than one solution - and, yes, the market itself can provide ways to integrate those solutions."

BISCHOFF: I DO NOT insist on a single standard, because I want it that way, but because logic and mathematics dictate it.

My insistence that a single commodity be used as the STANDARD OF VALUE is not something unique with little old me. I am citing the same quote I cited earlier in my retort to Dave, Jr.'s comments:

"Money is the measure of commerce... and therefore ought to be kept (as all other measures) as steady and invariable as may be. But this cannot be, if your money be made of two metals, whose proportion ... constantly varies in respect of one another.'
--John Locke (1632 - 1704), English Philosopher

This comment about a single STANDARD OF VALUE by a noted philosopher precedes my comments by 300 years. It certainly isn't something which found original concern with me.

If you think about it, the insistence on a single STANDARD OF VALUE is based on simple logic. This is something poor, old William Jennigs Bryan could never get through his head.

The Congress set a fixed ratio of gold to silver with the 1792 Coinage Act of 1 : 15. It was later revised to 1 : 15.5. This ratio worked when at the time silver was found along side gold as deposits and both were mined together in the same effort.

However, once large silver finds were made, such as the Comstock Lode in Nevada, the value equivalent of 1 : 15.5 no longer held. Rich, pure silver veins were much less laboreous to mine, than to mine the silver found along side gold.

In the late 1800s, silver prospecting was all the rage. The State of Nevada was the greatest lobbyist for maintaining the 1 : 15.5 value equivalent between gold and silver.

The relatively little amount of labor needed to mine and refine 15.5 ounces of silver from a pure silver vein in comparison to the amount of labor needed to mine and refine 1 ounce of gold, which in many cases amounted to four and five times the amount of work, simply no longer logically supported the value equivalent of 1 : 15.5.

William Jennings Bryan and his supporters simply could not get that through their head. Their contention was that by law silver miners should be able to demand from the banks 1 ounce of gold for every 15.5 ounces of silver they delivered up.

Do you really think that government interference in setting a fixed ratio and to enforce it was warranted... ??? If you do, then you are the statist, NOT I...

If you love silver, make silver the STANDARD OF VALUE. It will not work as well as will gold as the STANDARD OF VALUE, but go ahead... .advocate it. I could care less.

DB: "Yes, there CAN be more than one solution - and, yes, the market itself can provide ways to integrate those solutions."

BISCHOFF: That statement gets no opposition from me. Yes, let the markets decide what works. However, markets have to deal with reality. They cannot ignore universal truth. To call an apple an orange is illogical, but markets can usually settle such illogic in seconds. They need no help from me, or from you for that matter.

Reply from The Daily Bell

You must know after all this time that we advocate a floating ratio between money metals. In other words, the insistence of the US Congress on stating the ratio between gold and silver was a big mistake. The market should set the price, not the government.

But just as we predicted, your insistence on a single market standard for money and accounting contradicts the lip service you pay to "markets." You are entirely predictable, Ingo. The more agitated you become, the longer your rebuttals get. That doesn't improve their accuracy though.

Always enjoy stopping by The Bell. Wish I had the time to do it more often. While opinions vary widely, most are intelligently stated. Some posts here today however degrade to nearly name calling, which wastes my valuable (to me) time.

On the subject matter, once platinum reaches $1T per ounce, and if the coin weighs one ounce, the coins will disappear "as bad money drives out good" (Greshams Law). Ah, but my high tech solution would be electronic coins where the Fed could simply remark the coin at will, such as $1T, and change it to $10T or any other value at the flip of a switch! No need to recall the money or transport it in a wheel barrow such as 1924 German notes. Plus it would save energy!

The only possible better solution might be to eliminate fractional reserve banking as well as the Fed, and allow the market to define "money". I like the idea of gold coin, but marked as the weight, rather than dollar denominations. Government control of the money has worked out rather poorly in all countries. I agree we need something that works and SDRs will not be it either.

@ DB

DB: "You demand one money just as you demand one accounting standard - as if people were not capable of evaluating more than one measurement at a time."

BISCHOFF: "We have various measurement systems now, i.e. kilo, meter yard, pound, gallon, Imperial gallon, and on and on... .

You are not suggesting that they are all equal when it comes to numerical accounting, or are you... ???

If one the other hand, all different measurements are translated into one measurement for accounting purposes, then you defeat your own argument.

DB: "The logical outcome of such insistence is government interference to ensure single standards. You will then deny, as you have, that governments ought to impose such standards by force."

BISCHOFF: If you insist of treating apples and oranges the same for accounting purposes, your accounting is worthless. The only solution is to agree upon a fixed measurement of one kind or another that everyone will follow. At that point, I do not care whether the standard is promulgated by a French scientific organization or whether any government does it as with the US. Constitution in Section 8 of Article I.

To call me a statist based on that opinion is going a little far, don't you think... ???

DB: "But this is the regular implication of your argumentation nonetheless."

BISCHOFF: You imply that my indifference on who sets the standard for everyone to follow is advocating enforcement by government. How do I imply this... ??? I do maintain that following the standard is necessary to accomodate commerce. However, before I'd advocate government enforcement, I would always advocate self enforcement. Ostracize any offender who fails to follow the commonly agreed upon standard from doing business. Let him starve, if he insist on ignoring the standards. Does this attitude make me a supporter of enforcement by government... ???

DB: "Generally, your arguments are statist, just as the Georgist solutions you espouse are statist, proposing that all land be held in common and taxed by a single authority."

BISCHOFF: You attribute Georgist leanings to me. Let me take this opportunity to set you straight as to my support of the Georgist movement.

I support the philosophy of the Land Value Tax, as set forth by Henry George, to the extent as it coincides with the Anglo-Saxon principles of land use administration which goes back to the shire system in Engand evolving among the Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Friesen settling in post Roman England in the 5th Century A.D.

It was the Anglo-Saxon land use principle installed by Sir Thomas Dale at the Jamestown settlement in Virginia in 1618 which saved the settlement and helped it prosper. It was the rules at Jamestown which were turned into the first Constitution on the North American with the creation of the Connecticut Constitution in 1636. It was Roger Sherman of Connecticut at the constitutional convention in 1787 who saw to it that the U.S. Constitution followed the principles of the Connecticut Constitution.

In his book, "Progress and Poverty", Henry George deals with Anglo-Saxon principles of how to administer lands in such manner as to be able to use the portion of aggregate production, which is strictly due to advantages provided by nature, to be collected and to pay for services commonly enjoyed.

I am not aware that Henry George wrote his book being fully aware of the Anglo-Saxon principles of land use which built the United States. To the extent that the popularity of Henry George has been used by people to create a personality cult, and to take advantages of trusts and donations in his honor, I distance myself from the Georgist movement.

Therefore, you do me an injustice to call me a "Georgist", as that term refers to a cult movement in which I have no part. Futhermore, by labeling me such, you give ammunition to those who inately cling to feudalist thinking and who use the term with which to club me for opposing land speculation and feudalist exploitation. I am not a "Georgist", though I support Henry George's philosophy. If you need to call me anything, call me an "Anglo-Saxon at heart".

As to the land value tax, land value assessment, land recording, LVT collection, eminent domain, etc., etc. your understanding is clearly wanton.

DB: "There is in fact not much in your vision that is free-market or Austrian, though you seem to want to confuse the issue by vaguely - not specifically - endorsing private market solutions."

BISCHOFF: I do not try to confuse anything. I am full square in favor of "free market" distribution. "Free market" distribution is only possible by use of MONEY as an intermediate. Austrain economics is confusing on the subject of MONEY. I do however admire the work of Carl Menger as regards discovery of prices based on utility.

I am sorry, but I am unable to hold up Austrian economics, espoused by von Mises, Rothbard and Rockwell, as well as the DB, as a panacea. The German economists like Rittershausen made sure that the German language writings by "Austrian" economist were properly distinguished from the writings by German econimists by calling them "Die Oesterreicher". I stand with the Germans in making that distinction about economic philosophy promoted by the "Austrians".

Reply from The Daily Bell

"The only solution is to agree upon a fixed measurement of one kind or another that everyone will follow."

As predicted, Ingo. You insist on a single standard that "everyone will follow." It as if you are not at all familiar with F.A. Hayek and the idea of spontaneous organization. Yes, there CAN be more than one solution - and, yes, the market itself can provide ways to integrate those solutions.

Perhaps they have only floated this to get us used to they idea of even more massive currency creation that is already planned.

@ dave jr

DAVE: "I am not arguing against a standard. A standard is required in a market and will happen naturally. Gold as a standard happened naturally. That is good."

BISCHOFF: I am delighted that we are in agreement on this point.

DAVE: "It is only your incessant claim that gold and only gold can constitute money that causes me to question."

BISCHOFF: I have tried to make it clear that only one commodity either gold or silver can have the maximum marginal utility, though I explained that for a period of time silver and gold were set equal in ratio. This claim of a single commodity constituting MONEY is not an idea that originated with me.

Maybe my attempt to explain it leaves you questioning my comments. I don't know that I can much improve on what I already said. Therefore, I leave you to ponder the following quote:

"Money is the measure of commerce... and therefore ought to be kept (as all other measures) as steady and invariable as may be. But this cannot be, if your money be made of two metals, whose proportion ... constantly varies in respect of one another.'
--John Locke (1632 - 1704), English Philosopher

Reply from The Daily Bell

You demand one money just as you demand one accounting standard - as if people were not capable of evaluating more than one measurement at a time.

The logical outcome of such insistence is government interference to ensure single standards. You will then deny, as you have, that governments ought to impose such standards by force.

But this is the regular implication of your argumentation nonetheless.

Generally, your arguments are statist, just as the Georgist solutions you espouse are statist, proposing that all land be held in common and taxed by a single authority.

There is in fact not much in your vision that is free-market or Austrian, though you seem to want to confuse the issue by vaguely - not specifically - endorsing private market solutions.

@ Tom

TOM: "You have yet to discover the difference between price and value."

BISCHOFF: A very astute observation. There definitely is a difference.

I am using another venue to explain the difference in detail. However, from the comments I have made here so far, it should be possible conclude the difference through logical reasoning.

There is a precedence for the trillion dollar coin. The US government printed it own money during the revolutionary war and civil war which resulted in mass inflation. However the Ponzi scheme via the FED would be undermined. This is also why the Treasury does not directly sell Bonds to the FED. A Bank is used as a middleman to give the illusion of authenticity. If one looks at money as Tokens of exchange it puts things into perspective. It is not the actual Value of the tokens so much as the amount of tokens in circulation and yes I understand rare metals create fixed limits of token amounts and token expansion. However, the biggest problems facing Earth at this time are pollution and energy sources. Not everything is a covert conspiracy.

Bischoff: "The only thing that matter regarding the value of gold is the amount of human energy expended in its production. Therefore, gold mined with little human exertion has a lower value than that produced with a greater amount of human exertion. Yet, when it comes to prices, they are expressed in aliquot parts of gold which are constant."

You have yet to discover the difference between price and value.

The platinum coin gimmick is just another hapless distraction/diversion from the real issues - central banking and out-of-control gubmint.

Throughout history, the power-hungry parasite class has incurred astronomical amounts debt that cannot be repaid. They will default. The only question is who takes the lickin' - either the bond holders (whose loans have enabled out-of-control gubmint and who wager that their minion enforcers can rob The People to pay 'em back) through an "honest" default, or by paying back the debt with "money" created out of thin air, which will destroy the currency, wiping out millions of honest, prudent savers.

The only real solution is an "honest" default, which will punish lenders and make it difficult for gubmint to borrow again. Then, the several states must initiate repeal the 16th & 17th amendments and direct their U.S. Senators to repeal the (not really) Federal (with no) Reserve Act. Secession from the union is the only other solution.

Meanwhile, people must protect themselves from the inevitable collapse of global financial Ponzi and central-bank-issued paper/electron currencies by (1) storing non-perishable food, (2) stockpiling firearms & ammo, (3) converting excess financial assets into silver & gold bullion.

Meanwhile, fire all ruling (ElephantJackass) party parasites and vote Libertarian.

This whole thing reminds you of the Bearer Bonds scandal, doesn't it?
Bonds in multi-billion dollar denominations, but actually worthless.
Whether they are real or not... .who knows... .

@ Tom

TOM: "Are we talking labor theory of value here?"

BISCHOFF: We are talking about a labor theory of value, but not the one associated with the writings of Marx and Ricardo. They see prices relating directly to labor value without using MONEY. To them, prices are not discovered through arbitrage, yet discovery of prices is only possible through the use of MONEY by which prices are expressed in terms of aliquot parts of MONEY (Gold).

In your comments, you assume that gold has a price. As MONEY, meaning as the STANDARD of VALUE, gold does not have a price. It has value, but it does not have a price. This is the crucial point to understand.

The value of any good or commodity is directly related to the amount of human exertion (labor/work) invested to create it. It does not matter whether there is a large or small a contribution made by capital to the production of gold. The only thing that matter regarding the value of gold is the amount of human energy expended in its production. Therefore, gold mined with little human exertion has a lower value than that produced with a greater amount of human exertion. Yet, when it comes to prices, they are expressed in aliquot parts of gold which are constant.

Several millenia ago, the amount of human exertion needed to mine and refine a specified quantity of gold was set as a STANDARD by which to measure the expenditure of all other human exertion creating value in production of any other good or commodity.

Since gold miners have to eat, and their only production is the commodity which is the STANDARD OF VALUE (MONEY), they have to determine whether the desire on the part of the public to hold gold is such that they are willing to compensate the gold miners for their exertion with goods and/or services in exchange for gold.

Savings can only be held in gold. If people do not save, the demand for gold maybe too low for gold miners to want to exert themselves to add to an "overflowing" pool of gold. The decision to expend human energy to mine gold in light of the goods and services that can be had for it is totally independent of the "price of fuel", "capital costs" or anything else.

If gold is MONEY and it is, you cannot then talk about the "price" of gold. What is today called the price of gold is really just the inverse of the price of the Federal Reserve Note in terms of gold (MONEY/STANDARD OF VALUE). What I mean by that is that the quote of $1,800 USD for one ounce of gold is really the quote of 1 USD/FRN for 1/1800 of an ounce of gold.

When one looks at it that way, everytime the price of gold goes up, the value of a USD/FRN goes down, which is exactly what one expects from an irredeemable currency.

Reply from The Daily Bell

"In your comments, you assume that gold has a price. As MONEY, meaning as the STANDARD of VALUE, gold does not have a price. It has value, but it does not have a price. This is the crucial point to understand."

This is not a point that must echo through eternity. Some societies may NOT value gold and silver. What is being asserted here is an opinion not a fact. We've asked Mr. Bischoff to make this distinction from time to time. Since he won't, we will.

@ Jet

JET: "Constitutionally speaking, Congress has no power to create money."

BISCHOFF: You are absolutely correct. With the National Banking Act of 1935, the Congress materially modified the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 to turn the Federal Reserve, an association of reserve banks limited to supplying redeemable currency to their member banks against Bills of Exchange and gold only, into a government agency with the same name to distribute irredeemable paper currency created against congressionally voted debt to cooperating banks after the debt had been sold in secondary markets.

Under the original 1913 FRA, the limit to redeemable currency creation was set by the inventory of Bills of Exchange and gold held by a bank.

After the NBA of 1935, the only limit to currency creation rested with the Congress in voting debt, and with the FED central bank in setting the prime interest rate and the reserve requirement for banks in conjunction with Fed Agents who authorized new credit after repayment on previously extended credit was received.

The post 1935 "managed" currency system, which depends on selling debt in secondary markets, had to sooner or later come to its demise. Once the exponential curve of compounded interest on government debt intersected the linear growth of that debt, the irredeemable USD/FRN currency was doomed.

The sad part is that nobody sees the obvious solution. It is the same solution Horace Schacht as Finance Minister in the Weimar Republik applied when the Reichsmark ended up in hyperinflation. He instituted a parallel currency which was redeemable in gold, called the Rentenmark. In very short order, the currency markets sorted out the mess. Had it not been for the political agitation of the Nazis and the Communists to get rid of the Weimar Republik, Germany would have been well out of its economic depression by the mid 1930s.

I would not at all be opposed to resurrecting the original Federal Reserve Act of 1913, except that this time I would not put the Congress in charge of oversight, but give great thought to electing or otherwise creating an oversight body drawn from among average citizens to check on bank examiners, and to assure compliance with state bank charters.

What is required to allow a redeemable currency to return... ??? Only one thing. The Congress has to remove the "legal tender" protection from the Federal Reserve Note given to it in the 1982 Coinage Act. Thereafter, let the new redeemable paper currency, created against Bills of Exchange and gold compete with the irredeemable, debt monetized Federal Reserve Note currency.

You'd be suprised how quickly the number of government employees would shrink. Government employees will become dissatisfied with the purchasing power of their irredeemable FRNs as they have to compete in consumer and durable good markets with the more desirable, new redeemable currency which can only be earned in the private productive sector. This dissatisfaction with payment in irredeemable FRN currency will quickly lead to an exodus of employees leaving the public sector to seek employment in the private productive sector.

This is only one example. A parallel redeemable currency has so many benefits which will let us recover from our current monetary and financial mess that it would take me hours to list them all.

Reply from The Daily Bell

What Mr. Bischoff is saying in this lengthy and dense response is that Congressn eventually provided the Fed with a good deal more latitude regarding money creation. What he is NOT saying, though he knows it, is that this grant of power didn't much matter. The Fed's masters did just what they wanted to do as soon as the Fed was configured in 1913, rules be damned. The illegal money printing that began after the war continued throughout the 1920s, eventually causing a Crash and the Great Depression.

@NAPpy

Have to agree with the Bell, that is a nice site.

Wish I had not been too stubborn to take your advice. Human Action is rather a hard slog for a novice. Didn't get very far. Keep meaning to tackle Man, Economy, and State but since I don't plan to make economics my profession, there is always something else.

Thanks for the advice, I'll try not to be so stubborn, or rude, in future.

Misinformation about economics in general and gold in particular has been with us for a long time. . . http://youtu.be/EQyqvFVe4Y4

Bischoff @ 2:28 pm

"As CAPITAL (WEALTH used in production) reduces the amount of human exertion (work) required to mine and refine gold, the VALUE of gold (MONEY) changes."

Are we talking labor theory of value here? Mining gold involves, more than any other thing, moving ore from one place to another and separating the values from the overburden. This means that the viability of a gold deposit is determined not only by the value of gold itself and the amount of gold present in a ton of ore, but by the price of the commodity necessary to extract that gold from the ore, namely diesel fuel. Many known deposits can't be exploited because the values in the ore are less than the cost of the fuel needed to perform the extraction, not including the purchase price and wear and tear of the equipment used. Gold mining is earthmoving and its profitability is not difficult to determine in a given situation.

@ Dave, Good point re batman comic. Of-course values are subjective
or if you like the amount of gold someone will part with in exchange
for a item. Ok its fiat paper we are forced to use as a images of gold and
silver. The principal remains.

Outside economics what tells me that gold and silver have value is,
The masters of the universe do not want us to have it.
The Bulls*** smokescreen that the Allies slapped the Germans
with punitive reparations to pay for WW I.
True enough, what they don't mention is that a 40%odd theft was
slyly imposed on the British.
How? Simple reduce the silver content in all coin from 92.5% to 50%.
The coin of 1920 was as such.
13 years latter America pulls in gold at shotgun prices,then revalues.
Come 1946 no silver in British coin, by 1967 no silver in almost
any coin in the World. End of another war Vietnam no Gold Standard.
If The Governments don't want you to have Gold and Silver.
You just got to have it.

What kind of security measures would they use on a trillion dollar coin?

These are the kinds of events that illustrate the absurd nature of our world. The fact that this coin is being discussed seriously in any circle is almost mind boggling. What would Camus say?

If I remember correctly, years ago James Dines suggested that the US Treasury write The Fed a check for full payment of debt owed. This could be done with a platinum coin, but paper is cost effective. Turnabout is fair play.

By the way, what's to stop one or more fiat club members from challenging the current fiat leadership?

The Daily Bell is becoming more interesting.

Full blown banana republic status will have to wait:

The US Treasury has said it will not mint platinum coins as a way of averting a looming battle over the country's debt ceiling.

Click to view link

A good idea because it is so absurd that everyone can now see how corrupt the system is? I don't think so. We have passed that point. We keep passing it. If we mint a trillion dollar coin it may well meld into the giant mass of absurdity we have already passed, and be joined by other absurdly denominated coins. The only difference between it and multi-billion mark bills, and milti-trillion Zimbabwayan dollar bills will be its form as a coin, and the fact that it is the first one.

Print more fake money or coin a fake platinum coin, there is zero difference. It's just more currency debasement and governments have been doing that since governments were invented!

I own a few Zimbabwa trillion dollar notes. I will be looking for the rumored Krony. You know, the one with "Get Out Of Jail Free" struck into it.

Constitutionally speaking, Congress has no power to create money. It has the delegated power to coin money (stamp bullion) and borrow money. It can't create bullion. Nor would it need the power to borrow what it could create. Furthermore, only gold and silver coin are lawful money that pays debt. Which means the national debt, in excess of 16 T is impossible to repay, if you compute it with respect to the pre-1933 law. (post 1933 laws are under the state of emergency and do not comply with the constitution).
Of course, the validity of the impossible debt cannot be challenged, pursuant to the 14th amendment.
In a word, we're [expletive deleted]!

Since I instigated it, I apologize to DB and the Readers. And thankyou Ingo for an honest discussion.

"Yes, you are off into the giggly weeds"

Funny I met you there. lol

Ingo,

"Nobody produces, if the resultant product has no USE VALUE"

Not puposely. And that lends to my belief that it is subjective. It is prone to error. Freedom to err is an essential part of liberty.

I am not arguing against a standard. A standard is required in a market and will happen naturally. Gold as a standard happened naturally. That is good.

It is only your incessant claim that gold and only gold can constitute money that causes me to question.

@ Dave

DAVE: "I know, I am off in the giggly weeds, but extrapolate it to the larger economy. Who will enforce it?"

BISCHOFF: LOL... .Yes, you are off into the giggly weeds. Who will enforce it... ??? The MARKETS, of course.

@ DB

DB: "Yes, Ingo. Please be careful about monopolizing the discussion. We've always provided you a platform, but you can make your points without repeating them over and over, which can come across as a kind of bludgeoning that clogs the thread without benefiting your argument."

BISCHOFF: I do take your point. Yes, you have been very generous in allowing to make my points.

"The man dying of thirst couldn't bargain."

What if a man was dying for a vintage batman comic book to complete his collection and would be willing to pay $10,000 for it. Then found it in a garage sale for a nickel. Who could enforce a declared value?

I know, I am off in the giggly weeds, but extrapolate it to the larger economy. Who will enforce it?

Reply from The Daily Bell

Austrian value theory provides a pretty good answer: Individuals enforce value among themselves.

"Value is in the eye of the beholder, and hence voluntary trades are win-win activities in which both parties benefit by giving up something of lesser value in exchange for something of greater value."

Click to view link
(Subjective value theory)

To supplement the discussion on economic definitions, I summarize the definitions from Mises Praxeology here, including value:

Click to view link

And here are the economic laws (catallactics / austrian economics) derived from the laws (categories) of Praxeology:

Click to view link

Reply from The Daily Bell

The second link defining value and marginal utility is really great. Thanks, NAPpy.

Why not repay the fed with coins of limited value, that value of which is still more than all the worthless paper they conjure out of thin air, and then loan to us, at interest. The fed is a criminally corrupt rip off scam of monumental proportions, and all it's members and supporters should be incarcerated. They'd be lucky to escape jail with a few shiny coins in their pockets.

Ingo, get some sleep - you sound cranky as. I sincerely hope you are well and recover to civility soon.

Reply from The Daily Bell

Yes, Ingo. Please be careful about monopolizing the discussion. We've always provided you a platform, but you can make your points without repeating them over and over, which can come across as a kind of bludgeoning that clogs the thread without benefiting your argument.

IB: If something is not wanted or desired, it has no value.

BM: You earlier stated: 'Value is directly related to human exertion.' Do you now wish to add a qualifier to this? Value is directly related to human exertion only when that exertion is valuable? Rather circular on your part.

IB: Would anyone produce something, if he knew it wouldn't have value?

BM: The producer doesn't know - not with certainty. That is why the term 'loss' appears in the phrase 'profit and loss.'

IB: On what does the decision to produce depend?

BM: Speculation and judgment by an entrepreneur.

IB: If value is an expression of judgment by one person, is it not likely that the judgment by another person will differ?

BM: it is not only likely, it is certain. In this world, no two humans are exactly alike.

@ Dave

DAVE: "Money is created to intermediate exchange value period. Use value lays with you, not the money."

BISCHOFF: USE VALUE rests with the decision to produce. Nobody produces, if the resultant product has no USE VALUE. If excess production with USE VALUE can be exchanged for value of a product with greater utility, aka EXCHANGE VALUE, the arbitrage process (markets) uses the STANDARD OF VALUE represented by the value of gold (work required to mine and refine it), aka MONEY to arrive at a price quoted in aliquot parts of a specific amount of gold. (U.S. Eagle, African Krugerand, Canadian Maple Leaf, etc.)

MONEY allow MARKETS to function. What are markets other than the arbitrage process... ??? What's so difficult in understanding this... ???

BM,

Interesting. Consumers can demand flying cars, but nothing comes of it. Producers may be able to develop flying cars at a cost out of reach of enough consumers to justify a profit potential. Shall we just call it a beautiful dance, the free market?

DB: The Internet Reformation is not a political process. It is an observation regarding an evolution.

The Gutenberg press required people who could read. The Internet Reformation will have minimum requirements, too. That half the voters voted for Obama and the other half voted for Romney show, prima facie, that we may not meet those minimum requirements, and we're too close to the crisis stage. If you ask me to believe in things I cannot see, I choose God. As Voltaire said, "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him."

Reply from The Daily Bell

"The Internet Reformation will have minimum requirements, too."

What do you mean "will?" You're participating in the Internet Reformation right now!

STATEMENT: "Value always expresses a judgment of the estimation in which something is held, because a thing has value if and only in so far as it is wanted or desired."

QUESTION: If something is not wanted or desired, it has no value. Would anyone produce something, if he knew it wouldn't have value?

QUESTION: On what does the decision to produce depend?

QUESTION: If value is an expression of judgment by one person, is it not likely that the judgment by another person will differ?

Considering the example of the extreme, cited by Fuastino Ballve, comparing the value of diamonds belonging to a man dying of thirst in the desert with the value of water which could relieve his thirst, but possessed by an other man, it sheds no light on the question of VALUE.

The USE VALUE of two goods are usually such that the two use values can be arbitraged to arrive at an EXCHANGE VALUE for each. Arbitrage implies a "market". If the value of gold, derived from expending human exertion in mining and refining it, is set as the STANDARD, then arbitrage to arrive at a "market price" is possible.

The Ballve example is not valid when drawing a conclusion about values which lead to market prices. There was no MARKET in the Ballve example. The man dying of thirst couldn't bargain.

If you look at it from a cynical stand point, the man with the water was going to end up with the other man's diamond in any case.

JR: The producers are in charge

BM: Dave, I may be misunderstanding your comment, or perhaps just not following the context. If so, I apologize in advance... .

In a market-driven economy, it is the consumer who is in charge. The consumer votes with every transaction, selecting the winners and losers by his choice.

The producer must speculate on what the consumer wants and what the consumer will pay at the time in the future when his product will be available. The consumer decides if the producer speculated properly.

The producer is at the consumer's mercy, aided only by his (the producer's) ability to predict and forecast.

I find it intriguing that most sheeple think the trillion dollar coin is a monopoly money type of idea. "Surely this is some kind of joke" they say.

They are correct in that observation... ..but it may also twig the sheeple onto the idea that the whole monetary system is based on the very idea of the trillion dollar coin. The ante has been lifted to a new level.

I would agree that the trillion dollar coin is a great idea... ... just not in a savings portfolio.

Reply from The Daily Bell

They are correct in that observation... ..but it may also twig the sheeple onto the idea that the whole monetary system is based on the very idea of the trillion dollar coin. The ante has been lifted to a new level.

Very good! This was just the point of the editorial ...

@ Bischoff

Once agin there you go presuming to know me ... same as you do with anyone else who disagrees with you.

Thanks to BM and Dave Jr. there is not much more needed to be said about your views ... they are juvenile.

But go ahead and tell us all how YOU, the self-proclaimed master of economics, know all and we are just mere mortals. You are the most pathetic poster I have ever run across on any blog.

Ingo,

To say "An EXCHANGE VALUE is always equal to, or higher than the USE VALUE" doesn't jive with my observation of the natural world. To say it is 'typically' higher, I would agree, but 'typically' doesn't apply in the creation of definitions.

It is the 'use value' that is subjective and variable and the 'exchange value' only cues from it.

For example, if a factory with 100 million invested in land, building and modern machinery goes under, what is its exchange value? Under duress it may be several orders of magnatude less than its use value. This is important in any economy as a leveling factor. Nothing is a one way street forever, no matter what laws are instituted to make it so.

Money is created to intermediate exchange value period. Use value lays with you, not the money.

Of course money has no price, it is the price. I agree with you. A yard stick has no lenght, it is the lenght. But there are also meters, chain, rod, horse lenght, etc. Are you prepared to give me the definition of lenght? Who made you king? The unit of measure is what developes naturally among those using the measure.

The producers are in charge and politics can only interfere, distort and usurp the 'aliquot'.

Why waste platinum, just print the $16 trillion in paper money to pay off the debt... how about trillion dollar green energy notes? Give those to the Fed as payment in full. Signed by Al Gore!

I imagine that Woodrow Wilson is roasting in a very hot place, and deservedly so. Most of our troubles would vanish if we could roll things back to our pre-1913 state. This would also reverse FDR's gold grab of 1933(?). We want our gold returned.

As for the Internet Reformation, it wasn't enough for Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, and it won't help those useful idiots who don't know, and don't know they don't know. To be informed, people must seek out the truth, which apparently does not happen in large enough numbers to be helpful. Then there's the subversive tactics, as described by Yuri Bezninov (bless his heart), to which the internet is readily adaptable as a tool for mischief and misinformation.

Reply from The Daily Bell

The Internet Reformation is not a political process. It is an observation regarding an evolution.

Faustino Ballvé addresses the issue of value in his book entitled 'Essentials of Economics: A Brief Survey of Principles and Policies.'

Click to view link

For those who don't want to click through, a snippet:

Value always expresses a judgment of the estimation in which something is held, because a thing has value if and only in so far as it is wanted or desired. For example, a millionaire can buy a diamond for a hundred thousand dollars and find himself dying of thirst in the desert and unable to obtain even a glass of water in exchange for his diamond, which there lacks all value.

Reply from The Daily Bell

This is a good definition. It explains why gold and silver have held their "value" ... they have been considered desirable for thousands of years in a number of different circumstances.

DB: SF Gate explained in a recent editorial that the "'trillion dollar coin' idea is worthless." But, of course, it's not.

BM: I agree. The idea certainly has value. Of course, what has value for one may not have value for another. Or perhaps not the same value, subjectively speaking.

Adam: Understanding Economics: Definitions

BM: This is quite helpful, at least providing a common baseline and at least narrowing it down a bit. Of course, not only is value subjective, but the definition of the term 'value' is bound to be subjective, as are many terms dealing with human behavior and human action.

IB: Here is my explanation of VALUE: Value is directly related to human exertion.

BM: Dig a ditch, fill a ditch; dig a ditch, fill a ditch.

IB: Value comes into being as human exertion (work) is applied on or to LAND.

BM: Dig a ditch, fill a ditch; dig a ditch, fill a ditch.

IB: The resultant product is WEALTH.

BM: Maybe for some. Maybe not for others. I suggest that this conclusion would certainly be subjective, based on how one values the 'resultant product' of dig a ditch, fill a ditch; dig a ditch, fill a ditch.

@ Paul

You wouldn't know Georgist propaganda, if it bit you in the behind.

Come on, if you want to argue with me, use something else than Argumentum ad Hominem... ... if you are capable, that is.

@ Adam

No, I don't have a better set of definitions than given in the link to which you referred me, except to qualify the definition of RENT.

The site states: "RENT is that part of aggregate production which is the return for the use of land."

My definition is: "RENT is the collection of that part of production by the land holder (holder of fee simple title/exclusive use title) which is attributable to the advantages provided by nature.

Dave,

I don't mean to be condescending, though I am sure that is the way I come across. If you feel offended that I point out a difference in your understanding of 'value' and my understanding of 'value', as I used it in my comments, I am sorry.

Yes, communication requires an earnest attempt to capture the information each party is trying to convey. In that attempt, it is useful to have a clear understanding of the terms used. If there is no such clear understanding, a comparison of apples to apples is answered with a comparison of apples to oranges, making logical conclusions impossible.

You say, "In regard to your question, it takes action to mine and refine gold. That is where the value comes from. The gold was always there, it was not always in your hand. Delivering it to you is for the purpose of transfering value to my account else I wouldn't have done it. If you hold nothing I value, you have no account with me."

There is some truth to what you say. (Truth being a premise leading to a logical conclusion). Here is my explanation of VALUE:

Value is directly related to human exertion. Value comes into being as human exertion (work) is applied on or to LAND. The resultant product is WEALTH. When WEALTH is produced for personal consumption, it clearly has USE VALUE. When surplus WEALTH, having USE VALUE, is exchanged for other WEALTH having use value, the transaction is concluded by arbitraging the USE VALUES to arrive at an EXCHANGE VALUE. An EXCHANGE VALUE is always equal to, or higher than the USE VALUE.

In barter, the arbitrage process is a direct transaction between to parties, limited as to space and time.

The use of MONEY as an intermediate to translate USE VALUE to EXCHANGE VALUE removed the limitation of space and time. MONEY allowed arbitrage to take advantage of "market prices", which are expressed in aliquot parts of MONEY.

Therefore, MONEY has no price PRICE. Gold has been MONEY for millenia. As MONEY, gold is an excellent commodity to be the STANDARD OF VALUE, as well as a STORE OF VALUE. As CURRENCY (medium of exchange) it is lousy.

As CAPITAL (WEALTH used in production) reduces the amount of human exertion (work) required to mine and refine gold, the VALUE of gold (MONEY) changes. The value between gold (MONEY) and other goods and commodities varies to the extent that the labor reducing CAPITAL which benefits mining and refining of gold also does or does not benefit the production of other goods and commodities.

MONEY as the STANDARD OF VALUE measures the value of goods and commodities in terms of the value of gold, and the EXCHANGE VALUE is derived through the arbitrage process and it is express in aliquot parts of MONEY.

While the VALUE of MONEY can vary, the aliqout parts of MONEY always stay constant. That is known as the STANDARD OF PRICE.

From these remarks, and from my earlier remarks, you should be able to piece together how it all works.

@dave jr

Ingo is notorious for bleating his Georgist propaganda all over these threads and berating anyone who differs in opinion with him. I agree with you ... value is subjective. Bischoff and his kind would rather tell you what value is and force it into being.

@Ingo

Do you have a better online source for commonly misunderstood economic terms?

Understanding Economics: Definitions
Click to view link

Ingo,

I'm sorry I don't speak the language that fits into your ears. I don't have the education to be recognized on your floor.

I know you understand what I am trying to convey. Effective communication is a reach from both ends. But if you would rather obfuscate, that is fine, I get it.

In regard to your question, it takes action to mine and refine gold. That is where the value comes from. The gold was always there, it was not always in your hand. Delivering it to you is for the purpose of transfering value to my account else I wouldn't have done it. If you hold nothing I value, you have no account with me.

@ dave jr

DAVE: "I admire your loyalty Ingo. You are steeped in history, but not in principle. Value is subjective and not cemented in gold. Peoples holding each to account of their actions is the principle."

BISCHOFF: See, that's were you are wrong, Dave. You simply lack the knowledge of economic terms. I don't blame you for your confusion. It is common, and actually quite deliberate to confuse the terms used in economics by attributing to the economic terms the meaning of words as they are used colloquially.

You chide me for failing to hold to principle. You say that "value" is subjective, parroting the word "value" in its colloquial use. Then, you proceed to judge my comments as inconsistent based on what you understand of the meaning of "value".

Your comments prove that you do not understand the meaning of VALUE as used in economics, just as you proved that you do not understand other economic terms, such as LAND, LABOR, CAPITAL, WEALTH, MONEY, CURRENCY, PRIVATE PROPERTY, REAL PROPERTY, etc., etc. I come to this judgment from past comments that you have made.

As I said, to fail to understand the concrete definitions of terms necessary in discussing questions of economics, is common. Politicians, certain bankers and corporate interest who control the main stream media and advertising, and the totally coopted education establishment will not educate the public about the necessity to use concrete definitions for terms needed to construct a logical discussion about political economy. A logical discussion of political economy is the last thing these special interests want. I am sorry to say, Dave, but you are only playing into their hands with your lack of specificity in using words ad their meaning.

BTW, what do you mean by "Peoples holding each to account of their actions is the principle." In the context of discussing "value", what does this comment have to do with anything... ???

Hey! To take Martin B's idea a step further, let's go ahead and print a Quadrillion dollar coin. That way we will pay off everything and have an 800 Trillion surplus! We could then have all the socialst-oriented goodies Obama and his cronies can dream up, fund endless militarism around the world- with all the best whiz-bang hardware the military-industrial complex can devise, and do away with the IRS to boot!

Demand for gold rises as central banks diversify reserve holdings Updated: 2013-01-12 By Wu Yiyao in Shanghai (China Daily)

Click to view link

Hi Anthony,
Thanks for the insights about the trillion dollar coin.

I thought you were great on RT and spoke so well. I understand why you had to quit RT.

Do you have any other youtubes or could you start your own channel?

You are good on film.

One of your readers awhile back wanted you in Hollywood, remember?

Mary

Reply from The Daily Bell

Mr. Wile will be doing more video presentations for The Daily Bell. Not for RT or other third party entities. Thanks for asking.

Should the government decide to create the trillion dollar coin, I hope they will put a man on the front of it with his pockets pulled out to show that he is broke.

I admire your loyalty Ingo. You are steeped in history, but not in principle. Value is subjective and not cemented in gold. Peoples holding each to account of their actions is the principle.

DB: "Money, ultimately, is NOT paper, not historically anyway."

BISCHOFF: True. Paper is not historically, nor in any other way MONEY.

MONEY is a commodity which serves as the STANDARD OF VALUE. As such, money facilitates exchange transactions (trade). It serves as a standard to translate "use value" into "exchange value" by expressing the "price" as a result of arbitrage (markets)in aliquot parts of the STANDARD OF VALUE (Money).

How can you tell which commodity serves as MONEY... ??? It is the commodity which has constant, or nearly constant marginal utility.

Therefore, if and ONLY if, two commodities have identical marginal utility, can both commodities be MONEY. QED

Reply from The Daily Bell

Money is gold, silver or anything else that a group of people wish it to be, Ingo. History clearly shows us this. Sorry.

Yes, why not 17 coins and pay off the fake level of US sovereign debt, or maybe 200 coins and pay everything off. The coin idea shows the clowns in Washington have no answers to the nightmare situation they have put the world into. Such scum, almost all.

I wonder why platinum and only a trillion. If the price of a loaf of bread rises to a billion dollars... Sooner or later they will have to switch to lead.