Posted on 04/04/2011 10:20:04 AM PDT by 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....
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
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.
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.
You might find this of interest.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.