Bitcoin

[slang]

Originally Posted by tw

So are you saying that liquidity is unrelated (ie partially) to both money and currency? I suspect you are trying to 'measure' (characterize) money and currency using a standard called liquidity.

Running a bit late here, sorry Sir.

Yes. You're right. Liquidity.

It's important. How much currency do you need for your obligations? How much exposure do you want to the banking system or dollar currency system? Or your institutional investments?

How much money do you want to hold back while the currency is expanding?

Very good point, Mr. TW. One needs a combination of all mentioned.

[tw]

Originally Posted by slang

It's important. How much currency do you need for your obligations? How much exposure do you want to the banking system or dollar currency system? Or your institutional investments?

Which is only questions that says nothing about a relationship between liquidity and money or currency.

How do money relate to liquidity?. What is the relationship between currency and liquidity?

[slang]

Originally Posted by tw

...How do money relate to liquidity?. What is the relationship between currency and liquidity?

Money often doesn't support liquidity. I'll probably not break off a piece of my house and give it you for payment of the electric bill.

Currency would more likely support liquidity. Currency being money converted to a more payment friendly form.

Credit with my house as collateral might be a good solution. Or a bank account that holds my salary without credit or collateral involved.

Am I getting close?

What are your thoughts?

[slang]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

You could make an atom or two with fusion in a supercollider, but for mass production you need a supernova.

What would you guess the production might be if you were able to harness the energy of a supernova?

A gold nugget the size of Puerto Rico or the size of Alaska?

Maybe something in between.

[fargon]

Originally Posted by slang

A gold nugget the size of Puerto Rico or the size of Alaska?

That would just make Gold very cheap.

[tw]

Originally Posted by slang

Am I getting close?

What are your thoughts?

I was having problems understanding your boundaries between currency and money. That makes it a little clearer.

[slang]

Originally Posted by tw

I was having problems understanding your boundaries between currency and money. That makes it a little clearer.

Oh, I thought you were going to give a helpful link or explanation.

You know a lot more about economics than I do.

[tw]

Originally Posted by slang

Oh, I thought you were going to give a helpful link or explanation.

I was just trying to understand a curious new perspective.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by slang

It’s on my list now. Might an autographed copy be arranged at some point?

For a fee, of course.

I believe that I’ve heard it referenced in some of the videos I listen to. Not the crazy videos, the more conventional ones.

Of course! He'd be so happy to know I have a friend who read it. He thinks about as much of my politics as you do. Which is funny, because you're both assuming I hold a position I don't:

Originally Posted by slang

I see your point. Gold ( and silver and cash ) are a pain to work with... But your metals are yours, not something that is actually the bank’s but will repay you later should the bank fail. They often pay after all the good deals that could be yours, are gone, if only you had cash or gold outside the banking system to make a deal...

That's what I was saying. You were the one who said, "Before that disconnect [going off the Gold Standard] one wouldn't need gold since a paper dollar was effectively gold." I'm saying the Gold Standard had nothing to do with it. Prior to 1932, people had gold, and they had plenty of guns, too. And the guns didn't do a thing to stop or reverse the government's confiscation policy. They didn't just say "we're going to take it," they actually successfully took it, for over 40 years. No individual will ever take on the government with their guns--not a conservative against a progressive government, not a progressive against a conservative government. It's an unrealistic macho fantasy. I'm not saying you shouldn't have guns because of it--have guns if you want. I'm saying they won't do you any good. Likewise, going outside the financial system is nice, and I'm not saying you shouldn't do it--do it, by all means! People going outside the system is what put food on our table for my entire childhood. What I'm saying is that you only have that option because they allow it. If they decide to shut down your outside-the-system gig, they will win.

Originally Posted by slang

What if what it wants is not what millions of people want? Or a hundred fifty million people?

Then they'd better get voting. Because it takes a whole lot to get a Civil War going, and when it really comes down to it, the vast majority of that 150 million people (on either side) are not ready to die for what they want. We fight and we posture and we shake our fists at the computer screen, but at the end of the day, that's not what restrains government, nor is going behind the government's back. If they decide they want you, they're going to get you.

[xoxoxoBruce]

They'll not only get you, they'll probably make an example of you which hurts a lot.
I see China's coming down on crypto-currencies hard.

[slang]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Of course! He'd be so happy to know I have a friend who read it. He thinks about as much of my politics as you do. Which is funny, because you're both assuming I hold a position I don't

Ok, I was confused about your position by your apparent support of continuing the witch hunt even after a long and thorough process. By a guy that would get a Nobel prize for digging up solid evidence of anything but that hasn’t . Maybe tomorrow.

Plus you seem to support big government. I’m not sure if I ever met a right leaning person that wanted more government.
But I’ll take your word.

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

That's what I was saying. You were the one who said, "Before that disconnect [going off the Gold Standard] one wouldn't need gold since a paper dollar was effectively gold.

You are correct. I have mis-written.

Until ’71 foreign held dollars were redeemable. But not as an American citizen, only as an institutional holder, IIRC.

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

" I'm saying the Gold Standard had nothing to do with it. Prior to 1932, people had gold, and they had plenty of guns, too. And the guns didn't do a thing to stop or reverse the government's confiscation policy. They didn't just say "we're going to take it," they actually successfully took it, for over 40 years.

This is directly out of the book but it’s kindle here so the page numbers are different than the paperback so I can’t site them.

Part II.
Gold as Contraband II.
Public Compliance

“…It can be surmised that the total amount of gold withheld in violation of the law was at least as great as the amount voluntarily surrendered to the government, thus setting the level of compliance between April 1933 and January 1934 at no more than 50%. Whether this represents a governmental success or failure is left for the reader to decide.“

Your position stated above is that the gov’t actually did it, not just spoke of doing it. Despite the public having guns.

Aside from those who smuggled gold to Canada and those that chose to hide their gold, less than 50% of the public complied to Executive Order 6102, as seen in the book “Confiscation – Gold As Contraband 1933-1975 by Mr. F”

But what about compliance AFTER January 1934?

“…There are however two additional factors to consider when estimating compliance rates. First the face value of all the gold coins turned into the treasury between 1934 and 1960 was less than $12 million, or roughly 4% of the total outstanding as of January 1934.

Nearly all of this was reclaimed by discovery and seizure rather than voluntary surrender, so it’s clear that the early rates of noncompliance held steady even after the passage of the Gold Reserve Act.

Second, the Federal Reserve figures only account for the United States legal tender gold coins. There is no way to estimate compliance regarding gold contraband generally classified as bullion, which includes bars, medallions, nuggets, and most importantly, foreign coins.

The United States was a nation of immigrants, and what wealth they had was often brought over in various forms of gold and precious stones. Given this, the level of compliance was almost certainly much lower than 50%. As with other black markets, the market for owning, trading, and smuggling contraband gold was difficult – if not impossible – for the federal government to control.“

Yah-but…what about after 1960?

Criminal Prosecutions

At the same time that the Treasury Department was expanding the list of permissible “gold coins of recognized special value, “ the Department of Justice was continuing to pursue criminal prosecution for the mere possession of small amounts of gold bullion.

This included cases involving gold coins not exempted as collector’s items, such as the Mexican 50 peso restrikes dated 1947. Chilean 100 pesos, and Peruvian 100 soles. One of these cases, heard in the District Court for Southern California in 1962, attracted a level of notoriety that was unwanted by the government, but welcomed by gold advocates.

The defendants in the United States v. James Briddle and Harold Mitchell were accused of holding approximately $700 worth of gold bullion, in violation of President Roosevelt’s Executive Order 6260 of August 28, 1933.

After reviewing the historical and legal basis for Roosevelt’s order, district judge William C. Mathes considered the nature of the national emergency as it existed in 1933, and whether it continued to exist nearly 30 years later. As he wrote in his Memorandum of Decision dated December 27, 1962:

Certainly a “national emergency” of an economic nature existed in 1933 at the time of Executive Order 6260 was promulgated. The withdrawl and hoarding of gold threatened the nation’s entire economy.

It was against this panic that the order was directed. For this reason, the Congress obviously felt that stiff criminal penalties … were justified by the crisis confronting the nation.

…It is a simple matter, of course, to date the commencement of a “national emergency” by it’s declaration. But unless the ending be marked by proclamation also, it is sometimes difficult indeed to determine. Yet always at some point the “national emergency” does end, and the orders which find their authority in the existence of the emergency lost their validity.

Judge Mathes went on to note that this line of reasoning was applied in a 1954 case ( Bauer v. United States), but that the Court of Appeals refused to hear the case due to concerns over jurisdiction.

Judge Mathes declared that his court was the proper jurisdiction, and that indeed a national emergency no longer existed. The defendants’ motion to dismiss the indictment was granted, and the gold involved was returned to it’s owners.”

It seems like this source material contradicts your assertion that they “took it for 40 years.” Gold coins were legalized and hidden holders effectively pardoned in 1954. For non compliance to a law that clearly violated personal property protections, even if the USSC had not heard the case.

Bullion was still basically useless by policy until later, in 1975, but for the most part if you hid your gold bullion, eventually you could redeem it for financial gain, by the public law 93-373.

That officially legalized selling, purchasing and dealing with gold in all forms in the US and abroad. By then bullion was legal and there was a market for it
.
Only ONE person was successfully prosecuted by the confiscation. If you were to have hidden or exported your gold you would most surely not be prosecuted OR have it illegally stolen.

So of the US population of approximately 125,578,563 ( in 1933 ) divided by 2 (approx 50%) equals 62,789,281.5 did not comply in 1933.

It doesn’t appear as if the Man was terribly effective at enforcing the original confiscation. Or the hidden or exported gold thereafter.

[slang]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

No individual will ever take on the government with their guns--not a conservative against a progressive government, not a progressive against a conservative government.

I have a distant relative that sorta did. He is from Texas. There was a stand off. Feds decided it wasn’t worth the work, risk to staff and bad press of having a gun battle with a upstanding combat vet.

He left the country comfortably with money already moved. He had a home abroad. Wife and kids came with him.

A home that was not terribly expensive but fun and comfortable and out of jurisdiction.

So for the next 6 or 7 years The Man would contact him threatening him regularly to which he would reply something like “are you going to send the Marines to come get me if I don’t comply?”

Eventually the message that the Man sent was, “ok, you can come back to the US if you just pay this fine.” To which he responded something along the lines of, “Go fuck yourself, I could be here for the next 50 years. It’s kinda nice!”

So eventually he did return without paying any fines or any other invasion hassles. 8 or 10 years though. The issue was completely resolved and both went their merry way for many years without further incident.

They didn’t “gotcha” him. They could have but they were not in the right on this situation. Had they pressed on this they did not have the ability to prevent the facts from getting out. That the problem was completely fabricated from day one.

There’s a lot of that going around these days.

And another distant relative, also from Texas had a similar situation but was far more diplomatic with The Man. He was much more sophisticated that Uncle. He received a communication but was not nearly as abrasive as Uncle.

They went back and forth and back and forth and back and forth and back and forth and back and forth and back and forth and back and forth and back and forth and back and forth. Each time he was supplying more data for the proof that there wasn’t a problem.
Eventually they froze his account and assets too but they didn’t threaten him with troops or agents.

He is also a guy with means, but also assets out of the system so that in his case, it was troubling that there was a problem in their minds but he had tons of proof to make his case. He just kept right on living his life with more stress, but was not completely helpless like the average guy would be.

Eventually his account and assets were unfrozen too. No fines or the like.

They didn’t “gotcha” him either.

The power of the gov’t is a mighty force to be sure. But what the system wants is for you to be defenseless. Then they just send you a demand note, you shit your pants, write a check and everyone is “happy”. Well, you aren’t but that’s fine. You’re just a surf.

Have a backup plan in place ready to go. Then most likely if things get rough you shouldn’t be completely smashed flat.

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

It's an unrealistic macho fantasy.

It’s fantasy in your world. In my world it’s family history.

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

I'm not saying you shouldn't have guns because of it--have guns if you want. I'm saying they won't do you any good.

Not the most important item, you are correct on that. Testicular fortitude, a brain, having tools available that can’t easily been turned off with a keystoke, planning and training would be good.

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Likewise, going outside the financial system is nice, and I'm not saying you shouldn't do it--do it, by all means!

It’s really not all that big of a deal. Depending on how you do it, the Man could actually benefit as well. Just a safety precaution. Crazy weather, alien life form attack, crazy government lusting for control and money it’s not legally entitled to.

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

People going outside the system is what put food on our table for my entire childhood.

I’m very happy to know that citizen criminals avoiding the allegedly corrupt system and unlawful control systems were a benefit to you and your family.

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

What I'm saying is that you only have that option because they allow it. If they decide to shut down your outside-the-system gig, they will win.

There’s a remedy to that, the constitution. Yes, it’s an illusion to make people believe that they are free so that they may be harvested by all the systems living off the citizen and government.

Always remember that gold and silver are the only legal money in the US. It’s not vague. Not followed but it’s in there.

[slang]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Then they'd better get voting. Because it takes a whole lot to get a Civil War going, and when it really comes down to it, the vast majority of that 150 million people (on either side) are not ready to die for what they want.

People are surely not willing to die ( at this point or to fight to the death or even to exhaustion ) but are they willing to do without modern life’s gizmos? They could survive in a world without them, but would they want to? A modern civil war might be as simple as making people uncomfortable. Inconvenienced.

Everything is fine as long as booze, fat food, cable TV and air conditioning are available. If one breaks any of those systems, then maybe people might get angry enough to do something drastic. Like yell out the window or some other useless resistance.

Anything short of that, it's just too much energy.

And what many are learning now is that even when you vote, you don’t get what you legally should get. What you voted for. You don’t get what is legal. Even if there is legal precedence. Even if it’s a fundamental understanding.

Like Illegal immigration.

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

We fight and we posture and we shake our fists at the computer screen, but at the end of the day, that's not what restrains government, nor is going behind the government's back.

Can you somehow see me right now? By any chance?

Disobedience? I think we covered that above. It's not always "crazy" as people think it is.

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

If they decide they want you, they're going to get you.

With very few exceptions, yes. But only with the help of the mainstream media. Either by complete omission or outright lying about the details of why they want cha.

Some people that I know did actually benefit from that long hidden storage, after 1975, when there were too many people to “get gotten” at that time.

Grampa hid the loot in his house with a note. Grandson eventually found the note and loot and benefitted. In this case grandson benefitted enough to change the trajectory of his family.

He changed the loot into USD to make a deposit on a bank loan on a small apartment house. And then another.

He didn’t fall into the “gotcha”. And it wasn’t as if the system didn’t benefit. Win win?

I met another man who did something similar around 2005. His gold wasn’t holding gold from EO 6102 but financing was difficult or expensive for him for whatever reason.

He bought 50 oz of gold when it was cheap and no one wanted it. I was invited to look at his 50 oz just before they were deposited for a deal that he made for some real estate. He was very excited. I just observed in amazement. Fifty oz in 50 little glasses on a cart. It was great, a rich guy that appreciated gold as much as I do.Without being a bullion dealer.

He told me “I cannot imagine not making a great profit on this deal with the low price of real estate now and the high price of gold”

He was a professional investor not some gun finger spinning jackass™. Did he get the “gotcha”?

Only if the “gotcha” means you’re going to make a great profit.

[slang]

Just a few words here on the book "Confiscation - Gold as Contraband - 1933 to 1975

It's a great value. $3.49 on Amazon Kindle. $12 in paperback.

Easy to read, not too long and it's new enough to see forward into how gold might play a role in the US in the coming years.

Also what confiscation or extreme monitoring of your personal gold might look like in the near future.

High level legal aspects from years ago too.

If you are interested in physical gold and silver, buy it and read it. You wont get hurt on this deal.

[Clodfobble]

I'll tell him you said so.