Headerimage

Veritas News Service – 02/19/12 – What Is Constitutional Money?

Veritas News Service and CAJI/IS Exclusive

02/19/12

by guest columnist Johnathan Masullo

WHAT IS ‘CONSTITUTIONAL’ MONEY?

“Paper is poverty . . . it is only the ghost of money, and not money itself.”1

Thomas Jefferson (1743 – 1826)

There is a lot of discussion regarding money in the world today. Some powers-that-be are calling for a one world currency or global money.2 Economic stresses are caused by an assortment of influences, but money has the greatest weight in fiscal traumas. By means of bartering,3 two individuals will substitute one item for another. For example, A has tomatoes and B has wool. A would like some wool and B would like some tomatoes; therefore, A and B will negotiate a deal. Both parties will determine the value of their product, which is to say, X amount of tomatoes for X amount of wool and vice versa. Bartering is an admirable method; however, it has limitations. For instance, what if B did not need tomatoes? What would A give B in return?

To solve this problem, man devised a medium of exchange that would be common to all people, i.e., money. What is money? Money is defined as “the circulating medium.”4 Historically speaking, man used various forms of money. Some civilizations circulated sticks, coins, gems, paper, and the like. Money is the genus whereas sticks, coins, etc. are the species. Mr. J.J.S. Wharton enlightens, “Strictly speaking, coin differs from money, as the species differs from the genus. Money is any matter, whether metal, paper, beads, shells, etc., which has currency as a medium in commerce. Coin is a particular species, always made of metal, and struck according to a certain process called coining.”5

The Constitution of the United States of America6 unambiguously states that the Congress shall be the money power. Congress has the delegated power “[t]o coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures.”7 What does this mean? Mr. James Madison (1751 – 1836) tells us the following:

All that need be remarked on the power to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, is, that by providing for this last case, the Constitution has supplied a material omission in the articles of Confederation. The authority of the existing Congress is restrained to the regulation of coin struck by their own authority, or that of the respective States. It must be seen at once that the proposed uniformity in the value of the current coin might be destroyed by subjecting that of foreign coin to the different regulations of the different States. The punishment of counterfeiting the public securities, as well as the current coin, is submitted of course to that authority which is to secure the value of both. The regulation of weights and measures is transferred from the articles of Confederation, and is founded on like considerations with the preceding power of regulating coin.8

The founding fathers understood the significance of coin as money. Coin is tangible, valuable, and brings prosperity to the people. In other words, coin is sound money. Mr. Jefferson accurately stated, “Experience has proved to us that a dollar of silver disappears for every dollar of paper emitted.”9 Again, only the Congress possesses the delegated money power, neither the President, nor the Supreme Court, nor the several States. However, the several States may make gold and silver a legal tender in payment of debts.10

What is coin? Coin, as a noun, is defined as “[p]ieces of gold, silver, or other metal, fashioned into a prescribed shape, weight, and degree of fineness, and stamped by authority of government with certain marks and devices, and put into circulation as money at a fixed value.”11 This coin would pay tribute to the prosperity of the people of these United States. No civilization achieved the economic wealth and success as the people of these United States. This was possible owing to sound money issued interest-free and debt-free by the Congress to the people to use in their business. As we know through uncovered history, there were some individuals, one in particular, Mr. Alexander Hamilton (1755 – 1804), who wanted to destroy the ‘constitutional’ money of these United States since the inauguration. Why would said individuals commit such an act? For the reason that sound, interest-free, debt-free money is a threat and a rivalry to private money interests.

Banking institutions, paper money, and paper speculation destabilize the firmness of any nation. This is why the founding fathers delegated the money power to the General Government, exclusively, the Congress. The previously mentioned could be a danger in time of war too. The Constitution does not delegate to the Congress to establish a national or ‘centralized’ bank. The money supply is to be controlled by the Congress, which is closer to the people of these United States, and only Congress than by trusting it to private hands. Alas, private money interests won their authority, with the help of Mr. Hamilton, to establish the first (and many to come) centralized bank, i.e., the First Bank of the United States.12

Some people quarrel, “While Congress is delegated with the power to coin money, it is implied that the Congress may establish a national bank.” The reader can see the irrationality in said disagreement. There are no implied powers in the Constitution. Such people believe the Constitution to be a “living document.”13 The Constitution is precise and one does not need a Doctor of Juris to understand it.14 Mr. Jefferson confirms that the Congress, or any governmental power for that matter, is not delegated to establish a central bank, saying, “The incorporation of a bank and the powers assumed [by legislation doing so] have not, in my opinion, been delegated to the United States by the Constitution. They are not among the powers specially enumerated.”15

Coin, as a verb and seeing that used in the Constitution, means “[t]o fashion piece of metal into a prescribed shape, weight, and degree of fineness, and stamp them with prescribed devices by authority of government, in order that they may circulate as money.”16 The metal may be gold, silver, copper, nickel, lead, platinum, and so forth. The founding fathers knew metals, especially precious metals, have value and they will never drop to the value of zero; therefore, the founding fathers elected to have coin as our money. The founding fathers saw the dangers of paper money. Mr. Jefferson noted, “The trifling economy of paper, as a cheaper medium, or its convenience for transmission, weigh nothing in opposition to the advantages of the precious metals . . . it is liable to be abused, has been, is, and forever will be abused, in every country in which it is permitted.”17

The author will acknowledge that paper money has some advantages. Paper money is lighter, is less bulky, and is easier to convey. Can the reader imagine carrying around a sack of gold and silver coins? Which would be lighter and easier to transmit? Coin or paper? Though there are some advantages to paper money, its abuses also are inevitable and, by breaking up the measure of value, make a lottery of private property cannot be denied. The private money powers know very well how to manipulate markets by the use of paper money. This is why sound, interest-free, debt-free money, like coin and issued by authority of the government, is a menace to their power. Coin money frees the people and it warrants affluence. Mr. Jefferson, along with other founding fathers, warned us about the heavy pressures of banks, of paper money, and of paper speculation, saying, “I sincerely believe . . . that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale.”18

What is the solution? The author recommends the reader to do the following: 1) study the history of central banking in these United States; 2) study the history of money and its assorted species; 3) understand why the founding fathers designated coin as money; 4) read the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers regarding money, economic, and banking issues (after all, what they faced then we are facing now); 5) educate your fellow Americans regarding aforesaid issues (start locally–everything starts at the local level, not top-down–by doing so will have a trickle effect); 6) read Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt; and 7), which is obvious, read, understand, and apply the Constitution. There is another recommendation, which is optional considering it is dirty business, but also helpful in restoring our republic, pursue public office (preferably local level and step up the ladder). Having like-minded individuals in public office will increase chances. The author believes if the reader industriously follows the recommendation, then we the people of these United States will end the Federal Reserve and will refurbish constitutional money and our republic.
______________________________________

1 Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1788. ME 7:36
2 “Currency Experts World First Say Single Global Currency ‘Far from Reality’.” Market Watch. Market Watch, 2 Feb 2012. Web. 16 Feb 2012. <http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504383_162-5298305-504383.html>.
3 “The act or practice of trafficking by exchange of commodities; sometimes, perhaps, the thing given in exchange.” Webster, Noah. “Barter.” An American Dictionary of the English Language. 1st ed. Vol. I. New York, NY: S. Converse, 1828. Print.
4 Black, Henry Campbell. “Money.” A Law Dictionary. 1st ed. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company, 1891. Print.
5 Wharton, J.J.S., and J.M. Lely. “Coin.” Wharton’s Law-Lexicon. 7th ed. Boston, MA: Soule and Bugbee, 1883. Print.
6 While there is no official title of the Constitution, scholars often use the last phrase of the preamble.
7 Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5, Constitution of the United States of America
8 Federalist No. 42
9 Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1791. ME 8:208
10 “No State shall . . . make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.” Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1, Constitution of the United States of America
11 Black, Henry Campbell. “Coin.” A Law Dictionary. 1st ed. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company, 1891. Print.
12 The first centralized bank was issued a twenty year charter.
13 While the phrase “living document” is of modern origin, history teaches us that many unconstitutional acts and legislation occurred owing to presumptions or disregard of the Constitution completely.
14 To make this point valid, the author encourages the reader to study the story of the farmer and David “Davy” Crockett (1786 – 1836). Mr. Crockett campaigned to gain support from his constituents regarding an unconstitutional legislation. A farmer educated Mr. Crockett in his district. The farmer articulated to Mr. Crockett that his proposed legislation is not enumerated in the Constitution, but properly left to the several States to decide. Mr. Crockett left in shame. The Constitution was written for the common man, not for politicians, not for attorneys, and not for judges. Sadly, most people today do not understand the Constitution, let alone, read it.
15 Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on Bank, 1791. ME 3:146
16 Black, Henry Campbell. “Coin.” A Law Dictionary. 1st ed. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company, 1891. Print. The author also encourages the reader to study the Legal Tender Cases.
17 Thomas Jefferson to John W. Eppes, 1813. ME 13:430
18 Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23

Comments

  1. In applied mathematics you must describe your unit.

    Paper describes nothing. It has no intrinsic value.

    Paper is useless.

    Paper is fraud.

  2. In reference to this section…
    “The author will acknowledge that paper money has some advantages. Paper money is lighter, is less bulky, and is easier to convey. Can the reader imagine carrying around a sack of gold and silver coins? Which would be lighter and easier to transmit? Coin or paper?”

    I would have no issue carrying gold and silver around. In fact, if you were actually carrying “a sack of gold” around, can you imagine the bulk of carrying the equivelant face-value in paper money around in a sack. As well, the value of the coinage versus the tax that people call inflation do not mix. So, as history has shown, the prices of goods would not only be more stable but lower especially in comparison to a given quantity of gold or silver.

    But Johnathan, that is just my two-cents worth (no pun intended) and I thank you for writing such a nice article.

    • Absolutely. Jonathan penned an excellent treatise.

      Thanks, Jonathan.

      My thinking however refuses to allow paper as money.

      Paper is not in fact money. Money is something of value one can trade for something else of value.

      The only value that paper can have is when you bring your paper warehouse receipt to the bank or treasury and exchange it for the actual money it represents.

      Barring that, the paper is literally useless and devoid of any value whatsoever.

      • Not to be difficult Mudman, I’m sure you know more about money of real value than me, but money in itself is nothing more than a ‘medium’ of exchange, as explained in the article. It doesn’t necessarily have to have any real value within itself other than what it represents. A dollar on the other hand is a ‘unit’ of measurement.

        Fiat money is money issued by a government. I agree that paper money is usually a bad medium, but that doesn’t change the definition of money. Lincoln and Kennedy were both killed for their intents to issue sound paper money, Lincoln did a pretty good job of it. Good point about gold vs. paper Doyel, I never thought of it that way but… is there enough gold today to use for currency? Silver, yes I would suppose.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_value_%28numismatics%29
        Intrinsic Value – The market value of the constituent metal within a coin.
        Legal or Face Value – The legally defined value of a coin relative to other units of currency.
        Market Value – The price that a coin will fetch in the marketplace. For most coins in circulation this value is coincident with the face value.

        Short clip on fiat money and fractional banking – http://youtu.be/jFrpeaaSWjQ

        The Money Masters (super must-watch docuvid)
        http://tinyurl.com/7eu835p

        Thank you for the great article Jonathan, much much appreciated. I was discussing this subject with some sheeple in another forum just last weekend, so this report is very timely for me on a personal level.

        i.b.

        • I would think there would absolutely be enough gold to be used as currency. At some date the increasing of the amount of gold would stop, while the amount of available goods would continue to increase. In that case the gold would simply become more and more valuable (meaning that you can exchange it for more goods than before).
          With silver that is not necessarily the case, because first there actually isn’t as much silver in existence as gold, and second silver is used a lot in industry.

          Just a thought…

          • Not true about the silver supply Nico. Silver is used more because there is more silver.

            http://survivalus.blogspot.com/2011/03/what-is-gold-silver-ratio.html

            http://youtu.be/S-uTLzWwE2I

            As gold would grow in value and in distribution, gold coins would get more and more tiny. The idea of gold as currency is to have a stable medium of value, so I would think gold would lose a practical purpose for daily exchange. I’m not very knowledgeable of these things, that’s why I asked the question.

            • I don’t have an onlinesource for the silver thing, but according to Hans-Jörg Müllenmeister’s Stockletter (?) (Aktienbrief) from 2005 there were 130.000 tons of gold worldwide against only 3.000 tons of silver. In the links you posted they are talking about the price of silver and gold, not their actual supply. Gold is more valuable because of its chemical composition, not only because of the amount that is available.
              Also I guess that silver is used more in industry because it’s needed. You can’t use any other metal in most cases where silver is used.
              “As gold would grow in value and in distribution, gold coins would get more and more tiny. The idea of gold as currency is to have a stable medium of value, so I would think gold would lose a practical purpose for daily exchange.” – I don’t know if I even got your point, but gold doesn’t lose value when the coins get more tiny. But of course you wouldn’t always use real coins anyway, but…

              I’m not an expert either, just thought I might had an answer to your question.

              • Thanks Nico.

                In the first paragraph of the link I provided it says (and read the last sentence in this quote):
                “Historically, the ratio was pegged at 16 ounces of silver to one ounce of gold. Indeed, this value relationship of the two precious metals actually mirrors their relative abundance in the Earth’s crust.”

                I have seen a site (which specializes in silver sales) supporting what you’ve said about the silver supply, and a comment posted to the above link also says that silver bullion is apparently more rare these days than gold bullion. So you could (maybe) be right.

                As to my point about smaller gold coins, yes, that’s what were talking about here – gold as physical currency for immediate exchange for goods, as opposed to paper money. Do you get my point now? I’m talking about the practical (useful) qualities of gold as everyday coinage, not about its actual value. I didn’t suggest anything about gold losing value.

                Thanks again for your input.

                • I’m sorry, I don’t know how that phrase escaped my attention, must have overread that.
                  Since I don’t have all the earth’s gold and silver in front of me to see, I’m not a 100% sure which one is more rare. But even if it was the other way around silver would become more rare in the future because of the mentioned industrial use.

                  As to gold vs. paper money: I think it depends on your definition of paper money. What I meant when I wrote “you wouldn’t always use real coins anyway” is that you would mostly pay with a specific piece of paper which can be exchanged at a bank for a certain amount of gold. The difference between that and paper money is that the gold would have to stay in the bank and the bank wouldn’t have the authority to print at will, what of course leads to inflation. But maybe that’s even what you were talking about, I’m not exactly sure…

                  You’re welcome and sorry for the little mistake!

              • Nico,

                Doyel said… “if you were ACTUALLY carrying “a sack of gold” around, can you imagine the bulk of carrying the equivelant face-value in paper money around in a sack.” That’s what my specific question was directly related to – PAPER MONEY in contrast to ACTUAL GOLD COIN AS CURRENCY.

                My definition of paper money is MONEY that is made out of PAPER that one would use to buy things in their daily routine. Do you get it now?

                Before 1972, US dollars all represented a certain value in gold. If gold today was valued at $1000 per ounce – and you possessed one ounce, you would have $1000 to buy things with. How many coins could you produce with 1 ounce of gold? What if you buy something that cost $5? Or $1. Or 50 cents??? How would you receive change?

                Questions to ponder…

                BTW, Gold is used in industry too, I’m not sure if you’re aware of that.

                • Yes, I know that gold is used in industry, but not nearly as much as silver.

                  I think the problem is that you seemingly totally missed the point that precious metals do indeed have value while paper does not and can not (at least not today).

                  “How many coins could you produce with 1 ounce of gold? What if you buy something that cost $5? Or $1. Or 50 cents??? How would you receive change?” – Well, I don’t know how it is in the US but round here in Europe the smallest units of money are the only ones that have any value at all – because they are copper-coins. You could certainly use something like that for shoppings and for change. And the only reason why I said that silver wouldn’t be as useful as currency is because at some time there won’t be too much left.

                  I honestly can not understand how the difference between paper and precious metals is so hard to grasp. This has been absolutely clear to me since the first time someone provoked me to think about it. I thought you had understood it but from phrases like “It’s the way the value of that paper is determined.” or “Gold and silver and diamonds are just pieces of rock.” I got convinced of the opposite. Yes they are pieces of rock. But first, you can not produce them, and second, they have, as I mentioned earlier, a certain chemical composition which makes them precious. As to your last sentence, it would take too long to comment on that, but I have to agree with Mudjack on that. Just one example: In most prisons the folks deal in cigarettes, even the non-smokers. You would think that cigarettes would be worthless to someone who doesn’t have any use for them. But why do you think you won’t ever see any of them accepting a piece of paper with a number written on it (unless it’s an “official” note)?

                  I hope it’s a bit more clear to you now.

        • Right. Nothing more than a medium of exchange.

          And when you exchange nothing (paper) for something (goods and/or services)–someone gets something and someone else gets nothing in the exchange.

          If it’s “just a medium of exchange”, I wonder why the Fed would go to all the trouble of confiscating the gold and silver and giving us paper in return. after all, it’s “just a medium of exchange”.

          Maybe it isn’t.

          Because real money is indispensable.

          Paper money is not a medium of exchange. It is fraud.

          • Well, the Fed is clearly robbing us of our wealth, and that’s obviously how the value of the US paper dollar has declined. I think that’s a separate issue. The value of paper money is what it is redeemed for. When the US dollar was backed by the value of gold – and before the Fed was given the authority to regulate it – it was worth the current value of gold.

            As I see it, it’s not the paper that is fraud. It’s the way the value of that paper is determined. Money is a symbol of value, not the actual value that it represents. Gold and silver and diamonds are just pieces of rock. Can you eat it or make a house out of it or wear it for clothes? Nope, it’s just another medium of exchange.

            Unless you’re a metal smith or a jeweler or you make knives and forks like Paul Revere did, then it’s just a sack o’ rocks haha…

            i.b.

            • How can the value be determined or debased when the paper was never worth anything to begin with?

              I’m still curious as to why banks and governments need to confiscate the precious metals at the point of a gun and deprive the people?

              “As I see it, it’s not the paper that is fraud. It’s the way the value of that paper is determined”

              That the paper is determined valuable is part of the force and the fraud.

              Your last paragraph is complete nonsense.

              • I really don’t know what is so important about precious metals that they would need to be hoarded in such a way. I’m as curious as you are on that. I’m sure they have practical real values, but other than that I don’t know what the big deal is.

                What do you use your precious metals for besides banking your wealth, per the powers that be?

                i.b.

                • I’m not curious about why they hoard metals. I know already why they do it. As I’ve said, it is because real money is indispensable. I was asking you the question.

                  The point is, if gold is not valuable and there is no difference between gold and paper as a medium of exchange, why then do they grab all the gold and refuse to let it go and issue paper in its place? Why does the world mine for gold and silver? Why do people want it do badly and go to such great lengths to get it? Because it is valuable. Because real money is essential, indispensable. Because in applied mathematics you must describe your unit.

                  Because paper is worthless.

                  Why would I give you the real thing when you are content with the counterfeit? When you are content to believe that paper is worth something? Because your error, your acceptance of paper, is going to make me richer.

                  Why would I make it law that my paper is the only kind of paper that is acceptable as a medium of exchange and all other paper is counterfeit and a crime? Because issuing my paper only and making me the only game in town and confiscating your gold is going to make me richer and more powerful.

                  I use my gold and silver as a savings account and for trade, occasionally.

    • Doyel,

      You have a valid point. Hindsight is always twenty-twenty. I just wanted to illustrate some advantages of paper; otherwise, paper money is fiat or as Mr. Jefferson said “ghost” money (I like that description). At any rate, I hope this article sheds light to the people. We see the terrible effects of paper money. Thank you for the feedback.

      To everyone else, thank you for the feedback. I’ll keep ‘em coming.

  3. I remember Bill saying it is more worthless than a blank sheet of paper becuase you can’t even use it for writing things down. Fiat money is also good for buying precious metals or somthing with intrinsic value while we still can. I always keep a one dollar American bill in my wallet to explain to people how corrupt fiat money really is and you guys all know what is on that note.

    • Cooper was a genius and he was absolutely correct.

      *******

      You should also carry with you a toz of silver along with your FRN and show people what real money is. Watch their eyes light up when you drop that toz in the palm of their hand. It changes lives. Seriously.

  4. I’ve never seen a gold or silver dollar. I’d like to hold one one day and and work towards making that a reality in canada.

  5. It is our Constitutional responsibility to use only gold and silver coin for the payment of our debts. US Constitution Art 1, Sec 8, Cl 5. To use anyhting else is technically un-Constitutional. Not that it is our fault that we don’t have the option to use gold and silver as tender, but because our US Congress has abdicated their responsibility. We have to use the right arguments to restore our rights. Remember that you don’t have to know everything, you just have to enought to do the right thing.

  6. I’m still confused about all this.What am I missing?

    To me it seems like controling the price of gold and silver or any other commodity would be easier than actually semi-secretly taking over a nation’s currency.

    It also seems to me that it’s pointless to have government if it’s not going to be in control. If a governement doesn’t control the money than it’s not really in control.

    Controling the quantity of a valueless paper money ourselves(through our elected representitives) seems to make the most sense to me. We need to have control of the money along with government, otherwise it’s like taking the horse by only one rein, your just going to go in circles.

    Obviously it’s pretty idealistic. That system would be just as corruptable as any, and would be dependent on people having a clue and voting for the right people, but at least with that system if our money lost value it would be our own fault for electing the wrong people.

    Thanks in advance to anyone that can tell what I’m missing here.

    • Hannibal :
      I’m still confused about all this.What am I missing?
      To me it seems like controling the price of gold and silver or any other commodity would be easier than actually semi-secretly taking over a nation’s currency.

      It is easy to take over a nation’s money power. Mr. Hamilton and his fellow private money interests influenced Representatives, Senators, and President Washington to establish our first centralized bank, which was (and still is) unconstitutional. Every since then it has been a long struggle to return the money power to the rightful owner, the Congress. President Jackson was the only President to successfully defeat the private money interests.

      Hannibal :
      It also seems to me that it’s pointless to have government if it’s not going to be in control. If a governement doesn’t control the money than it’s not really in control.

      Government is unavoidable, after all, man is not an angel nor are there angels among men. Government, according to our founding fathers, was instituted to protect life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness of the people of these United States. Simple and basic. One may argue that is not the case today. Lastly, you are correct, that is, if a government cannot control its own money power, then it is not really in control. Why do you think private money interests have a central or national bank in every country of the world? If you can control the money supply, then you can control that country. Educating the people is part of the solution to return to constitutional money.

      Hannibal :
      Controling the quantity of a valueless paper money ourselves(through our elected representitives) seems to make the most sense to me. We need to have control of the money along with government, otherwise it’s like taking the horse by only one rein, your just going to go in circles.

      First, money is merely the genus whereas coin, paper, sticks, shells, gems, etc. are species. In other words, coin is particular specie of money. Second, paper money is not constitutional. There is no language permitting paper money in the Constitution. The Constitution requires coin and only coin, period. Now that coin may be gold, silver, copper, brass, lead, etc., but the founding fathers valued precious metals versus other metals and alloys.

      Hannibal :
      Obviously it’s pretty idealistic. That system would be just as corruptable as any, and would be dependent on people having a clue and voting for the right people, but at least with that system if our money lost value it would be our own fault for electing the wrong people.
      Thanks in advance to anyone that can tell what I’m missing here.

      Education and vigilance keep a government in check. Read story of Davy Crockett (link provided above). Mr. Crockett was schooled on the Constitution. How was this possible? An individual was educated and vigilant to keep the integrity of the Constitution. How many Americans can do the same today? Most Americans do not even understand the Constitution, let alone read it. Moreover, “American Government” courses in lower and in higher education pervert the original intent to “living document” and chastise the founding fathers. The people of these United States need a change of mindset. The only way is to start at the local level.

      • Thanks for responding and good work on the article by the way, but I’m still confused. I know its easy to take over a nation’s currency, my point was that it seems like controling the price of gold or whatever commodity would be even easier, less trouble.

        I get what you’re saying. I know the Constitution calls for it, there’s just something that bugs me about it. I guess what I’m not understanding is what makes any precious metals infallable as a money. How would the goldsmiths/moneylenders not be empowered by us using gold or silver or whatever?

        Fiat money seems to me to be the least of all the evils. To me it seems the only way we could have a chance at being in control. I guess since it’s been done before and hasn’t worked I should go read some history to find out why.

        Speaking as somone that needs to be educated, thanks for the help and keep up the good work.

        • Hannibal :
          How would the goldsmiths/moneylenders not be empowered by us using gold or silver or whatever?

          The founding fathers did not trust our money to private hands owing to the fact that the private money interests, goldsmiths, money changers, or whatever you wish to call them, manipulate money, markets, and economy for their benefit. Since our money is issued by the authority of government, i.e., the Congress, at interest and debt free, it is a threat to them and they are not empowered. The private money interests understand if the money of a nation is issued legitimately by its government, then it is a threat to their power and manipulation.

  7. Article 1, section 10:
    “No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but *gold and silver Coin* a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.”

    http://www.constitution.org/cs_money.htm

  8. “Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.” — John Maynard Keynes

    *******

    Another thing the Marxists were right about… was the fact that debauching the language was another way of “overturning the existing basis of society”.

    This is why people were made stupid and unable to think or to speak properly.

    Words are like money. They are a form of current or currency. But instead of transmitting goods and services, words transmit ideas.

    • Oh really? Have you ever held a word in your hands and carried around in your pocket? Words are like money in that they are symbols of what is actually real. Maybe you should try looking up the definition of money. And then look up the definition of words.

      You can’t touch a number either…

      i.b.

    • I think Mudjack makes a good point, words are powerful because they transmit ideas. By changing the definitions of words important concepts are lost or changed in people’s minds over time. Also, no matter how brilliant a piece of writing is (or the idea inside it), if it’s riddled with numerous spelling errors all the power it would otherwise have is lost, at least to those who notice them. Words are important!

    • Mudjack,

      Correct me if I am wrong, you are confusing language. Money is abstract. You and I cannot see, touch, hear, taste, or smell money. Money is merely an abstract concept. So, man uses tangible things like coin, sticks, shells, paper, or whatever to represent that intangible idea. As my article points out, “money” is simply the circulation or medium of exchange for the people to use in their dealings (whatever they may be). To manifest that idea, we use tangible objects like coin, paper, and the like.

  9. Nico,

    Well if copper is sooo valuable to you, I have a bunch of copper pennies (real copper) that I would be happy to trade with you for all of your worthless paper money. How’s that? Then I’ll trade all your worthless european paper money for the good US paper money and buy all kinds of stuff that I would like to own…

    [Nico says...]
    “But why do you think you won’t ever see any of them accepting a piece of paper with a number written on it (unless it’s an “official” note)”

    Money ‘is’ an “official” note duh. Your point about cigarettes as currency is moot – unless you’re writing to me from prison. Do you go to the store with your small units of copper coin and buy everything you want? Do you take a chunk of that rare silver and trade it for groceries?

    You and Mudjack don’t seem to understand the meaning of money. Paper is paper, metals are metals, but money is whatever a society uses to trade for goods and services. I know this is difficult for you to grasp, so here is what wikipedia has to say about money:

    i.b.

    [from wikipedia - read carefully...]
    Money is any object or record that is generally accepted as payment for goods and services and repayment of debts in a given country or socio-economic context.[1][2][3] The main functions of money are distinguished as: a medium of exchange; a unit of account; a store of value; and, occasionally in the past, a standard of deferred payment.[4][5] Any kind of object or secure verifiable record that fulfills these functions can serve as money.

    Money originated as commodity money, but nearly all contemporary money systems are based on fiat money.[4] Fiat money is without intrinsic use value as a physical commodity, and derives its value by being declared by a government to be legal tender; that is, it must be accepted as a form of payment within the boundaries of the country, for “all debts, public and private”.

    The money supply of a country consists of currency (banknotes and coins) and bank money (the balance held in checking accounts and savings accounts). Bank money usually forms by far the largest part of the money supply.

    Nico B. :
    Yes, I know that gold is used in industry, but not nearly as much as silver.
    I think the problem is that you seemingly totally missed the point that precious metals do indeed have value while paper does not and can not (at least not today).
    “How many coins could you produce with 1 ounce of gold? What if you buy something that cost $5? Or $1. Or 50 cents??? How would you receive change?” – Well, I don’t know how it is in the US but round here in Europe the smallest units of money are the only ones that have any value at all – because they are copper-coins. You could certainly use something like that for shoppings and for change. And the only reason why I said that silver wouldn’t be as useful as currency is because at some time there won’t be too much left.
    I honestly can not understand how the difference between paper and precious metals is so hard to grasp. This has been absolutely clear to me since the first time someone provoked me to think about it. I thought you had understood it but from phrases like “It’s the way the value of that paper is determined.” or “Gold and silver and diamonds are just pieces of rock.” I got convinced of the opposite. Yes they are pieces of rock. But first, you can not produce them, and second, they have, as I mentioned earlier, a certain chemical composition which makes them precious. As to your last sentence, it would take too long to comment on that, but I have to agree with Mudjack on that. Just one example: In most prisons the folks deal in cigarettes, even the non-smokers. You would think that cigarettes would be worthless to someone who doesn’t have any use for them. But why do you think you won’t ever see any of them accepting a piece of paper with a number written on it (unless it’s an “official” note)?
    I hope it’s a bit more clear to you now.

    • Yes, I appreciate your offer. Let’s make it this way: I send you a 1000 $ in paper and you in return send me 20.000 nickels. I wouldn’t have any problem doing that, except that I don’t have room for that many coins.

      I didn’t say that copper was sooo valuable to me, I said that it was the only used money that is actually worth ANYTHING, never said it was much. Well, as long as people give me things that I can use in return for paper, I will do that. And yes, I know you’re going to say know: ‘See, you’re accepting the paper, so that’s where it gets its value from.’ Not at all, it’s still worthless. But nobody round here will pay me with real money, so I have to deal with it. But since I know that it’s worthless, I’m getting me things that are worth something, so that when the day comes when the government declares all currency worthless, I won’t care too much because I didn’t depend on paper. You won’t have anything left except some stupid pieces of paper that nobody wants.

      “Do you go to the store with your small units of copper coin and buy everything you want?” Sure, if I have enough of them. But you didn’t even get what I was trying to tell you with the copper coins. If you keep all your money in copper coins, you don’t have to worry as much about inflation as you do now. Because the value of copper is not imaginary.

      Well, paper money doesn’t fulfill all of those functions – “a store of value” – certainly not!

      “declared by a government to be legal tender” – Yes, that’s the whole point. It’s declared to have value while it doesn’t.

      “Do you take a chunk of that rare silver and trade it for groceries?” – No, but I can take a silver coin, which is legal tender, and trade it for groceries, though I won’t do that because I would make a great loss.
      But when did I state that metals serve as currency at this time? If it was that way, there wouldn’t be any problem and we wouldn’t be discussing this. And if I had a grocery-store: if someone came to me and wanted to trade silver for groceries, I would sure do that. Again, if everybody understood this, there wouldn’t be the need for a discussion.

      “You and Mudjack don’t seem to understand the meaning of money. Paper is paper, metals are metals, but money is whatever a society uses to trade for goods and services.” I do understand that, but that’s the problem. Because we use that worthless stuff as money, we have lost a great portion of our wealth.

      And by the way, I didn’t say that grasping thing to be mean, – I really felt that way.

  10. “Paper is paper, metals are metals, but money is whatever a society uses to trade for goods and services.”

    Paper is useless and not tangible. Metals are useful and tangible.

    Money is not in fact whatever a society uses to trade for goods and services.

    Every time you go to the store and trade a Federal Reserve Note for goods and/or services, you have in fact defrauded the storekeeper of his goods and/or services by giving him nothing in exchange for something. In most cases, both the customer and the storekeeper are too stupid to realize what they are doing and also too stupid to look into the matter. This is what makes the corruption and the force and the fraud and the takeover of the country such an easy thing to do.

    It is only a matter of time until the force and the fraud are revealed or until it reveals itself. This is now happening in our society. This is what you are seeing.

    If, as you say, money is whatever society decides it is — then the FRN we are now using shouldn’t be a problem, should it? After all, everyone is accepting them. And not only accepting them, but DEMANDING THEM, WANTING THEM, WORKING FOR THEM. Doesn’t this demand make them more valuable? According to your thinking, the FRN should be gaining value with every moment that passes. But it isn’t. Instead the opposite is the case. Why is this?

    It is because paper has no value.

    • Hey all,

      Everyone should watch the very entertaining and super informative documentary “Oh Canada : Our Bought and Sold Out Land”. Viewable online for free here : ohcanadamovie.com

      It’s an extremely approachable work that should explain how paper money works to those who are unfamiliar with the machinery of the banking systems. It’s hilarious at points, but also has the facts right. Applies to virtually all paper currency on the globe, while offering a few more details about the Canadian and American systems.

      Go watch it! You won’t be disappointed!

      Rob

          • Don’t worry about changing the world. Take personal responsibility for yourself and your family, fix whatever you need to there first. Don’t become disillusioned into thinking that nothing can be done. Build a solid personal foundation first, then keep building from there.

      • The theatres in Canada should play documentaries like this instead of An Inconvenient Truth and Michael Moore movies.

        • Myself and/or HOTT has scheduled public viewings of DVD’s before and it is fairly simple. You should host a public viewing of that film where you live and get the word out.

          • Thats not a bad idea. I will look into it. I was already considering waiting outside a Mall and hand out dvd’s and information.

            • Yep, and most of the freeloaders that take a free DVD from you will probably never watch it. Your best bet is to sponsor a public viewing, have a brief introduction of yourself and how you want to network with people on solution-oriented activities and then show the film. Immediately afterwards you can have a discussion or idea session and by doing this you will automatically weed out the do-nothings from the future allies.

              • I am impressed with your comment. Its too bad because handing out dvds would be so much easier. I will look into it tonight. If I do end up doing this I will also probably want to show The Hour of Our Time as well to give people a better understanding of The Hour of The Time.

            • That gets expensive very quickly. At the donation price of $15 per copy that soon runs into a lot of cash for an unknown return. Like Doyel says, most folks will take the disc and never watch it. Keep in mind that HOTT produces all physical copies of this DVD for Dan Matthews, the film’s producer, and that Dan retains exclusive copyright on the film. Any project involving producing copies to be given away for free must be authorized by Dan in writing. Likely we can provide these for you at cost, but even then it adds up quickly. That’s up to Dan though.

              • I would want to do this as cheap as possible because I do not have any experience with this. So if I purchased those documentaries off you guys could I show them at a public showing for free and not have to worry about legal issues?

                • That is up to you. Call a local motel or hotel, your library, city hall (for possible free rooms in a school or city building), local churches. We cannot do this leg work for you. You know your local community and what is available. After you’ve selected a venue you’ll know what your options are for marketing. There are often free classifieds, free radio ads and free placement in community newspapers for local events. You’ll have to contact these people too. You can make up flyers to hand out at church or school or at cd release parties for local bands who may have similar political views. The opportunities are endless, but each situation is different so only you know yours.

                  Make it happen and we’re happy to help.

                  Rob

                • If you make all the arrangements for these screenings I will help you get a discounted or promo copy of each film. At that time we can get you the necessary ok from Dan (Oh Canada) and James (HOOT).

                  Rob

    • If you can hold paper in your hand then yes, it is tangible. Tangible means that it can be touched physically and paper is a physical item which can of course be touched. Basically, if my other explanations weren’t suffice, money is nothing more than a counting tool.

      As I’ve said and as is obvious, the Federal reserve system is corrupt and is robbing us of our wealth. If coins were made out of tin foil they would still represent a a certain amount of money. If that amount of money was equal to the current value of gold, then that tinfoil money would be redeemable at face value in gold. If money was made out of styrofoam, it would be redeemable at face value in gold.

      The Fed has stolen the gold because they are robbing the wealth from the country. It has nothing to do with what they’re using for money as physical currency. They could issue gold coins and still charge us for the gold and charge interest on the gold and they would still be robbing the country.

      If income tax were abolished, declared illegal and the Fed was forced to repay all the gold at the same rate of interest as they illegally charged us, our country would be rich, and every member of our society would be richer too. Then physical goods and services would allow working people to retain more of their own wealth. This is a separate issue from the value of paper when it is used as money.

      As I’ve already said, we were a lot wealthier when we were using Lincoln’s PAPER greenbacks, and before we allowed authority to the Federal Reserve Bank. I don’t know how more clearly to say it, but it’s not because I have misused any words.

      i.b.

  11. innocentbystander :
    Oh really? Have you ever held a word in your hands and carried around in your pocket? Words are like money in that they are symbols of what is actually real. Maybe you should try looking up the definition of money. And then look up the definition of words.
    You can’t touch a number either…
    i.b.

    Yes, I have.

    The words you have described are called books, contracts, essays, letters, treatise.

    We think in words.

    We transmit words from our mouths and they fall upon those within earshot. Certain words and tones convey a message with no uncertain meaning. And when the meaning is uncertain, either the transmitter or the listener has failed somehow.

    You touch numbers in applied mathematics – when you DESCRIBE YOUR UNIT, and in economics — when you strike coins into denominations, just for a couple of examples.

    Ideas and theories are real.

    In fact, what is the United States of America if is not an idea?

    What is a society if it is not simply the people that create it day to day, moment by moment, communication by communication, word by word, action by action?

    You may say we are a nation of laws. What are laws? Laws are words with precise meanings and definitions — enforced at the point of a gun.

    Words are real because we know what they mean. When we don’t know what they mean — they are useless.

    Like paper.

    Paper is useless because no one knows what it means, what it denotes, what it represents.

    But we know it represents absolutely nothing. That’s why we know it is useless.

    • Those books and other documents you carry around are nothing more than paper and ink. Words and numbers are only symbols, you cannot touch them, they are ideas and that’s all. You can pick 5 apples but you can’t carry a bushel of numbers. you can speak to someone on the phone or across the room, but you can’t touch the words. You can feel sound vibrations but you can’t feel the words. Guns are real, symbols are not physical objects.

      i.b.

  12. Johnathan :
    Mudjack,
    Correct me if I am wrong, you are confusing language. Money is abstract. You and I cannot see, touch, hear, taste, or smell money. Money is merely an abstract concept. So, man uses tangible things like coin, sticks, shells, paper, or whatever to represent that intangible idea. As my article points out, “money” is simply the circulation or medium of exchange for the people to use in their dealings (whatever they may be). To manifest that idea, we use tangible objects like coin, paper, and the like.

    Money is tangible. money is a thing of value exchanged for another thing of value.

    Definition of TANGIBLE
    1
    a : capable of being perceived especially by the sense of touch : palpable b : substantially real : material
    2
    : capable of being precisely identified or realized by the mind
    3
    : capable of being appraised at an actual or approximate value
    — tan·gi·bil·i·ty noun
    — tan·gi·ble·ness noun
    — tan·gi·bly adverb

    *******

    What’s abstract about money? If you go to the store to get a gumball and you have no coin or FRN, the clerk will send you away empty-handed, yes? Nothing abstract going on there. Nothing difficult to understand.

    Money talks, bullshit walks, as the saying goes.

    Definition of ABSTRACT
    1
    a : disassociated from any specific instance b : difficult to understand : abstruse c : insufficiently factual : formal
    2
    : expressing a quality apart from an object
    3
    a : dealing with a subject in its abstract aspects : theoretical b : impersonal, detached
    4
    : having only intrinsic form with little or no attempt at pictorial representation or narrative content
    — ab·stract·ly adverb
    — ab·stract·ness noun

    In the definitions above, I would deem money abstract in this particular sense: 1
    “a : disassociated from any specific instance” and “expressing a quality apart from an object”

    We must maintain a “medium of exchange” that is “disassociated from any specific instance” and “expressing a quality apart from an object” for the simple reason that when we meet in the marketplace we run into the problem of Mr. Smith having oranges and Mr. Jones having apples. Mr. Smith wants apples, but Mr. Jones does not want any oranges. Gold and silver are valuable commodities disassociated from the specific instance of Mr. Jones and Mr. Smith meeting in the marketplace and having a discussion of how Mr. Smith can get apples without having to take possession of any of Mr. Jone’s oranges — which he simply does not want.

    When we go the marketplace, we aren’t dealing in theories, but in real things in real time.

    Goods and services are real and money therefore must be real so that when an exchange takes place no one gets stiffed in the process. The one who accepts nothing in payment for his goods and/or services will eventually end up with nothing and become nothing, i.e., dead when at last he runs out of energy and has no means of getting any.

    • Again money is abstract. It is an idea. How do we make this idea manifest? We use tangible objects like coin, paper, or whatever to manifest the concept of money. Coin and the like are not only species of money, but also represent the idea of money. Money in and of itself does not exist. To make it exist, we use tangible objects available to us.

      Here is another example. Government. Does government in and of itself exist? No. Government is an abstract concept. Nevertheless, to manifest the government, we create constitutions, laws, agencies, fill it with persons, etc., and that merely represents the notion of government.

  13. innocentbystander :
    Those books and other documents you carry around are nothing more than paper and ink. Words and numbers are only symbols, you cannot touch them, they are ideas and that’s all. You can pick 5 apples but you can’t carry a bushel of numbers. you can speak to someone on the phone or across the room, but you can’t touch the words. You can feel sound vibrations but you can’t feel the words. Guns are real, symbols are not physical objects.
    i.b.

    Same goes for those FRN you carry around in your wallet.

    Nothing more than paper and ink.

    But, somehow, as you say, they have value — but other papers and inks do not?

    What if I were to write a book that tells you how to create your own paper money with impunity and spend it any way you like, to buy whatever you like, whenever you like?

    What would be more valuable then? The book I have written — or the twenty-five FRN I would charge you to take possession of the book and the ideas therein?

    • “What would be more valuable then? The book I have written — or the twenty-five FRN I would charge you to take possession of the book and the ideas therein?”

      They would be of equal value…

      i.b.

  14. Nico B. :
    Yes, I appreciate your offer. Let’s make it this way: I send you a 1000 $ in paper and you in return send me 20.000 nickels. I wouldn’t have any problem doing that, except that I don’t have room for that many coins.
    I didn’t say that copper was sooo valuable to me, I said that it was the only used money that is actually worth ANYTHING, never said it was much. Well, as long as people give me things that I can use in return for paper, I will do that. And yes, I know you’re going to say know: ‘See, you’re accepting the paper, so that’s where it gets its value from.’ Not at all, it’s still worthless. But nobody round here will pay me with real money, so I have to deal with it. But since I know that it’s worthless, I’m getting me things that are worth something, so that when the day comes when the government declares all currency worthless, I won’t care too much because I didn’t depend on paper. You won’t have anything left except some stupid pieces of paper that nobody wants.
    “Do you go to the store with your small units of copper coin and buy everything you want?” Sure, if I have enough of them. But you didn’t even get what I was trying to tell you with the copper coins. If you keep all your money in copper coins, you don’t have to worry as much about inflation as you do now. Because the value of copper is not imaginary.
    Well, paper money doesn’t fulfill all of those functions – “a store of value” – certainly not!
    “declared by a government to be legal tender” – Yes, that’s the whole point. It’s declared to have value while it doesn’t.
    “Do you take a chunk of that rare silver and trade it for groceries?” – No, but I can take a silver coin, which is legal tender, and trade it for groceries, though I won’t do that because I would make a great loss.
    But when did I state that metals serve as currency at this time? If it was that way, there wouldn’t be any problem and we wouldn’t be discussing this. And if I had a grocery-store: if someone came to me and wanted to trade silver for groceries, I would sure do that. Again, if everybody understood this, there wouldn’t be the need for a discussion.
    “You and Mudjack don’t seem to understand the meaning of money. Paper is paper, metals are metals, but money is whatever a society uses to trade for goods and services.” I do understand that, but that’s the problem. Because we use that worthless stuff as money, we have lost a great portion of our wealth.
    And by the way, I didn’t say that grasping thing to be mean, – I really felt that way.

    Right on.

    Your point about cigarettes is not moot either. Before they made it illegal to do so, I ran plenty of trunk-loads of cigarettes from Kentucky up to Minnesota and Wisconsin for sale at discount prices for my own personal pleasure and profit.

    I didn’t sell any of the cigarettes to inmates.

    • The cigarettes you sold were “goods” not currency. What kind of money did you use to buy the cigs in the first place? Silver or paper? What did you sell them for at discount prices? Silver or paper??

      I didn’t say that I love paper money. All I said is that paper money does have a value – a face value. And if it’s government authorized, then it is in FACT money.

      I have noting at all against using precious metals for legally coined money. I was just posing the question as to whether or not there is enough GOLD (specifically) to go around as coinage for the entire populace.

      i.b.

  15. innocentbystander :
    “What would be more valuable then? The book I have written — or the twenty-five FRN I would charge you to take possession of the book and the ideas therein?”
    They would be of equal value…
    i.b.

    So long as the force and the fraud of paper as money continues, my book would be of much greater value than 25 FRN — to those who wish to perpetuate force and fraud, that is to say. To those who know better — both the book and the FRN are useless.

    But once this force and fraud are discovered and done away with and we begin to use a proper monetary system in the existing societies — it all becomes useless.

    So, yes, you are correct. They are of equal value.

    They are all equally worthless — sooner or later.

  16. My comment is not meant to supercede or interrupt any of this wonderful discourse, but the whole argument of what has value, is a commodity, tender, store of value, etc. is a difficult one to discuss because of the manipulation throughout decades of double-speak and peoples perceptions. Let me give you and example of a recent transaction I had and hopefully it will help.

    I met a fellow who had a very nice shotgun that I wanted and he had a price of $200, which I didn’t want to pay. I had a case of ammo that I only had $90 invested in that I was willing to trade. He priced the case of ammo and it came to $225 for him to go get. So we traded! I now got the shotgun for $90 as far as I am concerned, and he got a $225 case of ammo for $200 as far as he was concerned, and we were both happy. Now here is where it gets goofy in terms of all these debates. The two of us just made a case of ammo and a shotgun a form of tender, commodity, a store of value, etc. for us. Now if he takes his case of ammo to the hardware store needing some 2×4′s to build a deck to make his wife happy, the hardware store is probably not going to trade. Is that case of ammunition suddenly without value? Certainly not, because he actually turned around and sold the case for $210 and received FRN’s from a guy I know, who himself now saved $15 over the ammunition store price and the guy who had the case of ammunition now had $210 FRN’s to spend at the hardware store, which was $10 more than he would have had, had I just plopped down the $200 FRN’s he originally was asking. All of these actual transactions and amounts were just relative using FRN’s as a medium and talking point to set a price point and theoretical market values of all items exchanged. Does this mean now that my original $90 case of ammunition is worth $225 dollars everywhere in our country and can be used in such a capacity? Certainly not, but through the use of barter and relative price points using the FRN as a measuring stick, we all got what we wanted, saved money over just transacting paper and the only precious metal (in my opinion it’s precious) moved around was lead and copper/brass.

    I only bring up this point as an illustration and hope I didn’t just make all of the fine discourse here even more confusing.

    Thanks,
    Doyel

    PS – You guys are commenting back and forth so quickly and I am sitting in hearings that if comments aren’t posted immediately just bare with us.

    Doyel

    • Absolutely, the worth of a thing depends on the value one ascribes to it. Even if you’re using actual money – when you pay someone 20$ for a product, to you the product is worth more than the 20$ and to the seller the 20$ are worth more.

      So if we follow the thought that Doyel brought in, Mudjack’s book wouldn’t necessarily be worthless – depending on the viewer. Maybe there is someone who collects garbage books or books on paper money or whatever and the book becomes a virtual treasure.

      To innocentbystander: According to this you’d be right to a degree on the value of paper vs. gold, but it doesn’t really apply in this case because people don’t appreciate the value of paper money, they rather think it’s worth something. So in this case it’s not a matter of opinion or taste but of deception or stupidity – probably a mixture of both (not meant for you but in general).

      Right on.
      Your point about cigarettes is not moot either. Before they made it illegal to do so, I ran plenty of trunk-loads of cigarettes from Kentucky up to Minnesota and Wisconsin for sale at discount prices for my own personal pleasure and profit.
      I didn’t sell any of the cigarettes to inmates.

      Yes, it used to happen (and still happens on a smaller scale) almost the same way here in West-Germany, because Belgium and Holland don’t tax coffee and cigarettes as much as Germany does. And I certainly wouldn’t have a problem finding some kids giving me quite a bit for some cigarettes if I wanted to because no one would sell any to them in a store. And I actually keep some for bad times when those who are addicted will need some, and I maybe will need something else which they can give me. To me a cigarette is absolutely useless, but I don’t need to be a smoker or prisoner to appreciate it’s value and that goes for everything else.

    • “My comment is not meant to supercede or interrupt any of this wonderful discourse, but the whole argument of what has value, is a commodity, tender, store of value, etc. is a difficult one to discuss because of the manipulation throughout decades of double-speak and peoples perceptions. Let me give you and example of a recent transaction I had and hopefully it will help.”

      Yep. The corruption of the language, of our words, of transmitting our ideas — is eminent. Along with the corruption of our money, our food, our children, our workplaces, our… you name it.

      All of the above have exact meanings and usage and principles — which have all been corrupted.

      The corruption of the words was also a part of the discussion earlier. I’m just noting that fact for anyone who didn’t see it earlier in the discussion.

      *******

      “but through the use of barter and relative price points using the FRN as a measuring stick, we all got what we wanted, saved money over just transacting paper and the only precious metal (in my opinion it’s precious) moved around was lead and copper/brass.”

      Yes. The FRN can be used as a “measuring stick” and/or as an object “disassociated from any specific instance” and “expressing a quality apart from an object” because everyone knows what it is and can identify with it, just as we can identify with an “inch”, a “foot”, a “yard” or a “milimeter”.

      But it does not give the paper intrinsic value. The paper is still useless. You’ve transacted something in useless paper — which means someone did in fact get stiffed in the exchange. So, now, the one who ended up with the paper is going to have to hurry up and stiff someone else to get his value back — before the fraud of the paper is discovered and the FRN is completely useless. So long as people are still accepting them and the force and the fraud is not discovered — the game can continue. When the game is up, you will need switch to real time, to real value — or find another false unit of measure to continue the con.

      This is where the force and the fraud is laid bare. People are made to think that the paper itself has value. It does not. People just think it does. They have no idea how or why they think it has value, they just accept it as a value because they always have, because generations have grown up with this corruption and fail to recognize it for what it really is, for example. Had the people you bartered with not known what are FRN and had no interest in finding out — you would not have been able to use the FRN in the exchange any more than you would have been able to use rocks plucked from the road in front of your house for the exchange. All would have been useless. More bullets and shotguns and canned food and para-cord and gold and silver and gunpowder, any number of things of value “disassociated from any specific instance” and “expressing a quality apart from an object” would have done the talking for you in fine style however.

      *******

      “I only bring up this point as an illustration and hope I didn’t just make all of the fine discourse here even more confusing.”

      No one is confused. You know what you’re talkin’ about — and paper is still useless. Lol.

  17. I would like to add one more, and final, comment to this long discussion (I did not expect so many comments–haha). I think we all agree that paper as money is useless. As Mr. Jefferson noted, “[T]he ghost of money.” We must return to coin as the Constitution prescribes. Additionally, rid the current private money interests (Federal Reserve) and return the money power to the Congress where it rightfully and Constitutionally belongs.

  18. Johnathan :
    Again money is abstract. It is an idea. How do we make this idea manifest? We use tangible objects like coin, paper, or whatever to manifest the concept of money. Coin and the like are not only species of money, but also represent the idea of money. Money in and of itself does not exist. To make it exist, we use tangible objects available to us.
    Here is another example. Government. Does government in and of itself exist? No. Government is an abstract concept. Nevertheless, to manifest the government, we create constitutions, laws, agencies, fill it with persons, etc., and that merely represents the notion of government.

    Money is a thing(s) of value exchanged for another thing(s) of value.

    “It is an idea”.

    Of course it is. Anything and everything made by men is, at first, an idea. It only becomes real when we put our hands and our heads to making it so.

    If I have an idea of a house in my head, that’s just what it is — an idea. When I go out into the woods to chop trees and make boards and actually build the house — it is no longer abstract — it exists. It is.

    When I decide that I shall use silver coin as money — it is an idea. When I go to the mine and dig up the ore and make silver out of it and strike it into coin and trade that coin for a dozen eggs — it is no longer abstract, it is no longer an idea — it exists. The money exists and the eggs exist. It is. It is done. It is real.

    Money is real. Money is something of value exchanged for something else of value. Money exists. This is why silver and gold are valuable and paper is not. Because money has intrinsic value and paper does not.

    “Money in and of itself does not exist. To make it exist, we use tangible objects available to us.”

    That statement is nonsense. First you say it does not exist, then you proceed to tell me you “make it exist” and that it is a tangible object that is available to us.

    For that matter, nothing exists “in and of itself”. All things are interrelated. Everything is made up of something. The only thing that “exists in and of itself” theoretically anyway, is God.

  19. Johnathan :
    Again money is abstract. It is an idea. How do we make this idea manifest? We use tangible objects like coin, paper, or whatever to manifest the concept of money. Coin and the like are not only species of money, but also represent the idea of money. Money in and of itself does not exist. To make it exist, we use tangible objects available to us.
    Here is another example. Government. Does government in and of itself exist? No. Government is an abstract concept. Nevertheless, to manifest the government, we create constitutions, laws, agencies, fill it with persons, etc., and that merely represents the notion of government.

    Government exists. It does not exist in and of itself.

    Government is force.

    Government is an idea. Ideas are real.

    Government is a man self-starting and self-inhibiting.

    Government is an instrument of appropriation, prohibition, compulsion and extinction.

    Government most certainly does exist — and ought to exist.

  20. innocentbystander :
    If you can hold paper in your hand then yes, it is tangible. Tangible means that it can be touched physically and paper is a physical item which can of course be touched. Basically, if my other explanations weren’t suffice, money is nothing more than a counting tool.
    As I’ve said and as is obvious, the Federal reserve system is corrupt and is robbing us of our wealth. If coins were made out of tin foil they would still represent a a certain amount of money. If that amount of money was equal to the current value of gold, then that tinfoil money would be redeemable at face value in gold. If money was made out of styrofoam, it would be redeemable at face value in gold.
    The Fed has stolen the gold because they are robbing the wealth from the country. It has nothing to do with what they’re using for money as physical currency. They could issue gold coins and still charge us for the gold and charge interest on the gold and they would still be robbing the country.
    If income tax were abolished, declared illegal and the Fed was forced to repay all the gold at the same rate of interest as they illegally charged us, our country would be rich, and every member of our society would be richer too. Then physical goods and services would allow working people to retain more of their own wealth. This is a separate issue from the value of paper when it is used as money.
    As I’ve already said, we were a lot wealthier when we were using Lincoln’s PAPER greenbacks, and before we allowed authority to the Federal Reserve Bank. I don’t know how more clearly to say it, but it’s not because I have misused any words.
    i.b.

    Yes, paper is tangible — but worthless.

    The Federal Reserve System is corrupt and robbing us of our wealth? How is this obvious?

    The idea of the Fed and the IRS being abolished would make our country richer is speculation. It would be dependent on what the people would replace these institutions with. Ask General Jackson about this. He abolished the Fed, all right — but forgot to replace it with real money — and here we are again.

    Everyone loved the Greenback because it was not an interest bearing note and therefore kept the fake debt in check. It was not Constitutional money however. It was still paper that was of no value that denoted nothing and represented nothing. It would only last longer because they didn’t have to print an abundance of them to pay off fake debt. The foreign bankers did not like the Greenback however and killed Lincoln for it. It messed with their ability to print more money and create more fake debt and slowed down their ability to lead us to ruin faster than they would have if they were to have control of all fake debt — like they have now with the Federal Reserve.

    The Fed is still making even more and more elaborate ways of creating more and more fake debt. They don’t even like to use paper anymore and are working hard toward getting rid of paper and coin and using only electronic digits.

    For those of you who love the idea of the “usefulness” of paper money because it is “lighter” and “less bulky” and “easier to carry around” and etc., etc. — man, you’re gonna love the electronic digit!

    HA!
    HA!
    HA!
    HA!
    HA!
    HA!
    HA!
    HA!
    HA!
    HA!
    HA!
    HA!
    HA!
    HA!
    HA!
    HA!
    HA!
    HA!
    HA!
    HA!
    HA!
    HA!
    HA!
    HA!
    HA!
    HA!
    HA!
    HA!
    HA!
    HA!
    HA!
    HA!
    HA!
    HA!
    HA!
    HA!
    HA!
    HA!
    HA!
    HA!

  21. I am laughing because many of these comments come from people who tried to pay for orders with bullshit paper script that was fractionalized by Mr. Nut House.

  22. Doyel :
    I am laughing because many of these comments come from people who tried to pay for orders with bullshit paper script that was fractionalized by Mr. Nut House.

    One could take Mr. Nut House’s warehouse receipts to his warehouse in real time and actually exchange it for coin. One can’t do that with FRN.

    But now that Mr. Nuthouse’s warehouse is shut down and he is headed for the slammer — the warehouse receipts he issued are completely worthless.

    See what I mean? Once the paper game is discovered or runs to its logical end — or is simply shut off, as in Mr. Nuthouse’s case — it’s all over now but the cryin’.

    Should have at least gotten the coin when buying from Mr. Nuthouse. One would have had something to show for it at least. And, as Doyel has so well pointed out, there are much cheaper and easier, i.e., better ways of getting your hands on some coin.

    On the other hand, now, in doing business with the Fed, THEY got the coin, the gold the silver, the interest, the paper, the digits — THEY GOT IT ALL — while we got nuthin’ at all to show for it.

    [Well, not yet they haven't got it ALL -- but they're workin' on it -- and succeeding.]

  23. innocentbystander :
    The cigarettes you sold were “goods” not currency. What kind of money did you use to buy the cigs in the first place? Silver or paper? What did you sell them for at discount prices? Silver or paper??
    I didn’t say that I love paper money. All I said is that paper money does have a value – a face value. And if it’s government authorized, then it is in FACT money.
    I have noting at all against using precious metals for legally coined money. I was just posing the question as to whether or not there is enough GOLD (specifically) to go around as coinage for the entire populace.
    i.b.

    Goods and currency are basically the same thing. One reflects the other. If you have goods and no currency, it makes the transmission or distribution of the goods extremely difficult and messy and in most cases not possible. Same if you have currency but no goods. You have a dead current.

    I didn’t use money to buy the cigs. I used FRN, which are worth nothing. Thus, I defrauded (fair and on the square) the cigarette dealer and stole his cigarettes, then transported my cigarettes to the North where I defrauded myself (fair and on the square) and my customers by accepting more FRN in exchange for the cigarettes than which I originally gave, which I returned with to the South where I exchanged for more cigarettes — and so on — until I had I had a lot of FRN, which eventually allowed me to defraud my cig dealers out of so many cigarettes that I couldn’t fit them all in the trunk of my car.

    Then, I took the surplus FRN and bought a small trailer which I pulled behind my car to the South and began filling my trunk and my trailer full of cigarettes and hard wood furniture to transport and exchange for more FRN in the North — and so on. This fraud continued until the agent that is government started paying more attention to what all of us were doing and said, “Look, assholes, we’ve had enough of you and other assholes like you transporting all these cigarettes and trading them for FRN, so we’ve decided that if you keep doing this shit — we’re gonna appropriate your cigs AND all your FRN, prohibit your trade altogether and compel you to sleep and eat in a cage for a long while. Lucky for you, the penalty we’ve decided for you to endure as a result of all this trading and ambitious, clever behavior is not your extinction. Whadday think about THAT, boys?!”

    Personally, I thought theirs was a bad idea, a bad choice of words and actions, but just the same I wasn’t feeling up to pitting my wits and my guns against theirs for the sake of supplying smokers with smoke at a discount. ‘Screw that’, thought I. ‘If I am going to take all the risk, the smokers should pay a premium, not a discount.’ The smokers however did not want to pay the premium and so I stopped this ambitious behavior and went and took a 9 to 5 job and defrauded myself for FRN, like all the other schmucks in my neighborhood had done.

    [As an aside, taking the 9 to 5 however did not in fact reduce my risk. As a result of taking the 9 to 5, I suddenly found myself at an extreme health risk of being stressed out and bored to fucking death. The pay was much, much less than cigarette trading and was heavily taxed on top of it.

    As a result of being bored to death and risking my sanity and my health, I began to daydream of getting out of the cigarette and the 9 to 5 rackets both altogether and getting into into the government racket and defrauding people "legally", like the lawmakers and their enforcers were doing; but it occurred to me that that would be like "putting on airs", as the saying goes, and putting on a uniform or a suit to go to work each day. I was much too free-wheeling and uninhibited for that kind of foolishness. I don't like being phony and I don't like the idea of kissing ass, sucking dick and licking foul pussy for the "prestige" of climbing the corporate ladder or even for the FRN which occasions it, even if it is ample.

    No, no. Not I. Too muck of a rock and roller for that bullshit.

    Instead I took jobs where I could work hard and diligently and use my creative skills to get FRN. There's not much FRN in it, but at least it's honest and I don't have to put on any airs and I was free to do with my spare time exactly what I pleased.

    Been headed pretty much in that direction ever since.

    I have to admit, I do have that desire to slip back into corruption from time to time. I was, after all, born and raised in corruption. It is one of the few things in this life that I do in fact understand -- only too well.

    As our enemies have demonstrated, before our waking eyes, there is a great power in corruption, a great power in the negative, a great power in doing violence and wreaking havoc. But in all the excitement, in all the chaos and disorder, they have lost sight of something that I have not...

    Corruption might get you power and wealth and all that men desire -- but it will not help you keep it.

    When it comes to doing good or evil, you have a choice. You can have one or the other -- but you can't have both.

    When one mixes cyanide and fresh vegetable juice and drinks it down -- the cyanide always wins, i.e., always kills.

    Force and fraud are extremely dangerous tools for our use. They must be used with extreme caution and care and only for the purpose of destroying destruction.]

    • So in this instance, paper had value hahaha…

      “Goods and currency are basically the same thing.” According to this comparison, day and night are basically the same thing too haha.

      Thanks for the story Muddy, YOU RAWK!! :D

      i.b.

  24. innocentbystander :
    So in this instance, paper had value hahaha…
    “Goods and currency are basically the same thing.” According to this comparison, day and night are basically the same thing too haha.
    Thanks for the story Muddy, YOU RAWK!!
    i.b.

    Yes, the paper had value, just as it has value now. It serves the purpose of perpetuating the fraud of paper having value.

    Paper has no value. And the fraud continues without relent and is leading us to our ruin. But, as we have learned, it is no accident. It’s being done on purpose. And anything else we attempt to accomplish is futile so long as this fraud continues.

    Goods and currency are the same thing in the sense that you cannot have one without the other. They go hand in hand — like night and day.

  25. I just remembered how people’s retirement money becomes worthless by the time they go to collect it because of inflation. They are robbing people. If a company gives you RRSP’s it is just a made up number on a computer and is only worth what you collect 30 or 40 years down the road and then it is worth way less.