Feds seek $7M in privately made 'Liberty Dollars'

hosted ^ | Apr 4 | TOM BREEN

[JoeProBono]

RALEIGH, N.C. - Federal prosecutors on Monday tried to take a hoard of silver "Liberty Dollars" worth about $7 million that authorities say was invented by an Indiana man to compete with U.S. currency.

Bernard von NotHaus, 67, was convicted last month in federal court in Statesville on conspiracy and counterfeiting charges for making and selling the currency, which he promoted as inflation-proof competition for the U.S. dollar....

[dollarbull]

The whole gold vs stocks thing is kind of lame. Under any circumstance, it’s insane not to have both in a well-rounded portfolio.

You're just a fount of knowledge today aren't you? To paraphrase PTJ "gold is just an asset like any other, it's got it's time and place. that time is now"

Gold has crushed stocks +10 years running now, so NO it's NOT appropriate to have gold and stocks, unless you want to underperform.

I will sell gold for stocks and RE when the valuations have adjusted to all the money printing and guys like you are buying gold at $5K/oz.

[dangus]

Oh, Gawd. For posting the "stupidest post ever," I was three conversations past you! Yeah, we are ALL aware of the government's ability to "counterfeit" money. Duh. But guess what? The government can also switch the backing standard, and outlaw the use of secondary currencies. It did so in 1933, and it did so last week, when it ruled some guy's privately issued silver currency, "counterfeit."

My point is that with paper money, the government's actions may be foolish, but at least they're purposeful. With gold money, a mere inventor can destroy the world money supply.

The fact that I referred to publishing money should have clued anyone but a drooling idiot to the fact that I was aware of your argument and was adding to it. And if you misuse terms ("counterfeit"), the fault is entirely yours if someone misunderstands what you mean by them.

By definition, money is an abstracted value; the value of gold is not its economic utility, but what it's an abstraction of. I certainly understand Paul's motives in blocking the fed from being arbitrary, not merely abstracted. But the problem with tying an abstract value to a tangible asset is that the tangible asset is not necessarily constant. Gold is not feasible as an abstraction for goods and services, since one may acquire gold without being able to acquire the goods and services it represents. The oceans represent a reserve of gold millions of times more vast than the gold we can collect, and the technology is near (if not as near as we thought in the 1970s) to when that gold can be acquired without acquiring actual wealth.

If Paul desires we return to the gold standard, he must also devise a means by which we can detach from that standard in the event of a drastic shift in the value of gold.

[dollarbull]

Gold is super-hot right now because we have monetary hyperinflation being masked by economic deflation; If we do a Greenspan-Reagan maneuver to pull out of this death spiral, you’ll see a spike in unemployment and interest rates... but then somehow, but a crash in gold. But then your stocks will start taking off, and if you rebalance your portfolio frequently, you’ll have taken your profits from gold already.

How's that working out for ya? Down cratering and gold about to pierce $1700...

[dangus]

Did you miss the conditional? I wrote “IF” we do a Greenspan-Reagan maneuver. We’re continuing to print money to cover our expenses, and we’re continuing to economically crater. That means my advice, as cited by you, means to stay in gold.

But just watch out: when you see Washington successfully reverse quantitative easing, instead of inventing new ways of perpetuating it, then you’ll have your signal to sell your gold and switch to stocks.

I’m thinking it’s probably pretty safe to stay in gold until after the 2012 elections.

[mad_as_he$$]

You might find this of interest.