Jump to content






Photo
- - - - -

A quote by Thomas Jefferson regarding money:


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 gulch8

gulch8

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 721 posts

Posted 07 December 2010 - 05:01 AM

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

There is a rather amusing video at http://silvergoldsilver.com which is becoming viral on the internet entitled Max Keiser vs. JP Morgan Silver Manipulation. There are references within it to several websites or newsletter writers who have made investors aware of the evils of JP Morgan with its massive naked short futures trading position in silver and to players in the antigovernment intervention movement.

http://silvergoldsilver.com/

Here it is on youtube:



I think Jamie Dimon is the CEO of JP Morgan

Today there is an organized run on the banks which began in Europe and is spreading around the world.

Silver is in short supply and industrial users are going from weekly on time delivery to accumulating enough to hold them a longer time so they can keep their assembly lines going.

Chairman Bernanke has reassured us that it is a myth that he is printing money. What a relief!

It is probably not too late to join the party as gold and silver have their limelight performance which may go on until the prices of them is sufficient to back up all the Federal Reserve Notes in the world. That would be estimated as $53,000 per ounce for gold. The traditional ratio of gold to silver is 15 to 1. Do the math!

Enjoy!

Edited by gulch8, 07 December 2010 - 05:02 AM.


#2 Reidy

Reidy

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,614 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:CA
  • Interests:Architecture, cooking, music, philosophy

Posted 07 December 2010 - 09:22 AM

It's bogus:

http://www.snopes.co...erson/banks.asp

http://wiki.monticel...nks_(Quotation)

Your accomplishments as a historian don't inspire confidence in your abilities as a financial adviser.

Edited by Reidy, 07 December 2010 - 10:22 AM.


#3 gulch8

gulch8

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 721 posts

Posted 07 December 2010 - 06:53 PM

It's bogus:

http://www.snopes.co...erson/banks.asp

http://wiki.monticel...nks_(Quotation)

Your accomplishments as a historian don't inspire confidence in your abilities as a financial adviser.


Reidy,

Fortunately I am neither a historian nor a financial advisor nor do i claim to be either. I do appreciate your response and the links as well.

We do know I believe that Jefferson did manage to abolish the central bank during his presidency by simply refusing to sign its renewal charter. He had lived through the experience with the paper Continental currency so he was aware of the dangers of irredeemable paper.

I understand from an article which appeared in Freedom Daily in Jan 2010 that some debtors had signed contracts to repay their loans of gold coin in gold. But some pleaded with their legislators, after the victory at Yorktown, to change the gold clause so that they could repay in paper instead. This may have been an impetus to the establishment of a federal government over the states. We know it led to the statement in Article 1 Section 10 which held that States should hold only gold and silver coin as tender for payment of debts.

I wonder where one would begin to look to find details of this phenomenon, e.g. actual cases of legislation in the thirteen States between the time of the Battle of Yorktown and the ratification of the Constitution which sought to modify the content of such contracts to eliminate the gold clauses.

Do you have any suggestions?

TIA

gulch

#4 Aristocrates

Aristocrates

    $$$

  • Members
  • 260 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee

Posted 16 March 2011 - 10:19 PM


It's bogus:

http://www.snopes.co...erson/banks.asp

http://wiki.monticel...nks_(Quotation)

Your accomplishments as a historian don't inspire confidence in your abilities as a financial adviser.


Reidy,

Fortunately I am neither a historian nor a financial advisor nor do i claim to be either. I do appreciate your response and the links as well.

We do know I believe that Jefferson did manage to abolish the central bank during his presidency by simply refusing to sign its renewal charter. He had lived through the experience with the paper Continental currency so he was aware of the dangers of irredeemable paper.

I understand from an article which appeared in Freedom Daily in Jan 2010 that some debtors had signed contracts to repay their loans of gold coin in gold. But some pleaded with their legislators, after the victory at Yorktown, to change the gold clause so that they could repay in paper instead. This may have been an impetus to the establishment of a federal government over the states. We know it led to the statement in Article 1 Section 10 which held that States should hold only gold and silver coin as tender for payment of debts.

I wonder where one would begin to look to find details of this phenomenon, e.g. actual cases of legislation in the thirteen States between the time of the Battle of Yorktown and the ratification of the Constitution which sought to modify the content of such contracts to eliminate the gold clauses.

Do you have any suggestions?

TIA

gulch


Andrew Jackson sure wasn't much on banks either. Was that all that he and Jefferson had in common?

#5 Michael E. Marotta

Michael E. Marotta

    Rational Empiricist

  • Members
  • 2,635 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Austin, Texas
  • Interests:Numismatics, Physical Security and Computer Security, Aviation

Posted 17 March 2011 - 09:51 AM

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

Not to take much away from Thomas Jefferson, but he was wrong.

I heard this same line from a Ron Paul volunteer at the LP booth at the Ann Arbor Street Fair 2009. He claimed that only the government should be allowed to create money. The Ron Paul people were there gathering signatures on a petition to audit the FRB. The lefties here thought that was good idea. Many people signed.

History shows that centralization under the government is worse than private banking. In fact, even allowing governments to compete in the issuance of currencies is better than legalized centralization. I have pointed before this website, Spanish Coins on American Money. Before 1857, private banks in Michigan and other states promised payment in Dollars and Cents, but showed Spanish (Mexican, etc.) coins in their vignettes, because Federal coinage was less widely known. In fact, before 1857, about 20 different silver and gold coins from different nations were recognized as legal tender here in the United Stats.

In fact, historically, the plethora of money issuing entities created a stable currency matrix. Only legal monopolies allowed debasement. The Roman Empire is the classic case. In the Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic ages, no city could debase its coinage because so many others close at hand struck good silver and gold. Once Rome achieved hegemony, that changed. From the Republic through Pax Romana, there were slips, but it was over all, steadily downhill. Even after recovering from teh military anarchy, the Constantines and their successors continued to reissue good money and then debase it. During the Dark Ages and Middle Ages, hard money currency was restored and such debasements as were common were motivated from the increasing value of silver, as opposed to fraud by the state. (As silver became more valuable with increased trade and commerce, coins could only get so small. Copper was not used on its own as a medium, so silver was debased to meet the markets. But everyone knew that and acted on it. Bankers invented "money of account" in pounds-shilling-pence as abstract currency. Regardless of what coins were offered in what quantities and tallies, this is what you were owed in silver pounds-shillings-pence.)

Again, in our time, we do have competing currencies - and we do have a gold-backed dollar.

The American Gold Eagle competes against the Maple Leaf, the Philharmonic, the Panda, etc. Some are pure gold. The Canadians boast FIVE NINES .99999 PURE though most are three or four nines fine. The AGE is 33.931 oz, but only 0.9167 fine for a net of One Ounce. The old US $20 are only .9675 OZ, being 33.346 grams but 0.900 fine. Americans are a huge market for American government gold. Other mints sells to other markets, so they have to meet more competitive standards.

The fact is that the American government sells gold coins at the market price. Thus, the dollar is backed in gold.

I understand from an article which appeared in Freedom Daily in Jan 2010 that some debtors had signed contracts to repay their loans of gold coin in gold. But some pleaded with their legislators, after the victory at Yorktown, to change the gold clause so that they could repay in paper instead. This may have been an impetus to the establishment of a federal government over the states. We know it led to the statement in Article 1 Section 10 which held that States should hold only gold and silver coin as tender for payment of debts.


I went looking for that Freedom Daily article but did not find it. As for that genesis, I do caution against simply relying on newspaper accounts or whatever else is handy. Most historians today accept without question the "Panic of 1857" which might never have happened. True enough, it was reported in some NYC newspapers. Here in Michigan, we get newspaper reports of monsters in the woods, such as leopards and Big Foot.

There is a lot ignorance out there.

Edited by Michael E. Marotta, 17 March 2011 - 09:57 AM.

Mike M.
-----------------------------------------------

Michael E. Marotta, BS, MA.
Criminology & Social Science


Blogging at Necessary Facts
Website: CSI: Flint (2011)
------------------------------------------------


#6 Aristocrates

Aristocrates

    $$$

  • Members
  • 260 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee

Posted 17 March 2011 - 10:26 PM

History shows that centralization under the government is worse than private banking.



Well, given this statement, would you agree that we would be better off without the Federal Reserve System?

#7 Ted Keer

Ted Keer

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 3,084 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York City

Posted 17 March 2011 - 10:33 PM

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

Not to take much away from Thomas Jefferson, but he was wrong.



More like this is wrong for Jefferson. You do realize that the "quote" is bogus? "Deflation"? "Continent their fathers conquered"? These terms should raise flags even if Reidy hadn't pointed out the forgery above.





Confession is always weakness. The grave soul keeps its own secrets, and takes its own punishment in silence.

#8 Brant Gaede

Brant Gaede

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 16,344 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tucson, AZ
  • Interests:All kinds of stuff

Posted 17 March 2011 - 10:44 PM

I believe the central bank destroyed by Jackson was a private bank. While all FDIC banks are private, they are effective agents of central banking--the Federal Reserve. It's a facet of fascism.

--Brant

Rational Individualist, Rational self-interest, Individual Rights--limited government libertarian heavily influenced by Objectivism


#9 Aristocrates

Aristocrates

    $$$

  • Members
  • 260 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee

Posted 17 March 2011 - 11:18 PM

I believe the central bank destroyed by Jackson was a private bank. While all FDIC banks are private, they are effective agents of central banking--the Federal Reserve. It's a facet of fascism.

--Brant


well how would one reverse or abolish this facet of fascism?

#10 Brant Gaede

Brant Gaede

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 16,344 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tucson, AZ
  • Interests:All kinds of stuff

Posted 17 March 2011 - 11:26 PM


I believe the central bank destroyed by Jackson was a private bank. While all FDIC banks are private, they are effective agents of central banking--the Federal Reserve. It's a facet of fascism.

--Brant


well how would one reverse or abolish this facet of fascism?

Wait. When the dollar is worthless, strike!

--Brant

Rational Individualist, Rational self-interest, Individual Rights--limited government libertarian heavily influenced by Objectivism


#11 Aristocrates

Aristocrates

    $$$

  • Members
  • 260 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee

Posted 18 March 2011 - 12:02 AM



I believe the central bank destroyed by Jackson was a private bank. While all FDIC banks are private, they are effective agents of central banking--the Federal Reserve. It's a facet of fascism.

--Brant


well how would one reverse or abolish this facet of fascism?

Wait. When the dollar is worthless, strike!

--Brant


with what?! LOL

#12 Michael E. Marotta

Michael E. Marotta

    Rational Empiricist

  • Members
  • 2,635 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Austin, Texas
  • Interests:Numismatics, Physical Security and Computer Security, Aviation

Posted 18 March 2011 - 04:46 PM


It's bogus ...

We do know I believe that Jefferson did manage to abolish the central bank during his presidency by simply refusing to sign its renewal charter. He had lived through the experience with the paper Continental currency so he was aware of the dangers of irredeemable paper.


This time, let me catch the foul ball. The Charter of the First Bank of the United States expired in 1811 and was not renewed. It was Andrew Jackson (not Thomas Jefferson) who killed the Second (not the First) Bank of the United States. Even before his veto, he moved federal money out of the BUS and into "pet banks."

Maybe there is no trend or sub-cultural norm here, but when I read about the gaffes of Michele Bachmann and add those ignorances, I wonder at how the mighty have fallen. In my day, when William F. Buckley and Ayn Rand were alive, conservatives actually knew their US history. Now, they just make it up as they go along.

In my high school AP US History class our textbook was Bailey's Diplomatic History of the American People. We read Morison, Commanger, Hofstadter, Boorstin's Colonial Experience, Merrill Jensen, Schelinger's Age of Jackson.

But the dumbing down was evident even then. My class was 1967. The "adjusted" peak was 1965. The SAT scores have been declining from Day One. (See Time from 1973 here: http://www.time.com/...,910920,00.html
and The National Center for Educational Statistics here:
http://nces.ed.gov/p...es/dt04_129.asp)
It really is unfair to blame these patriots for being victims of public education. They not only did not learn US History, they did not learn how to learn it. They get their propaganda from websites and blogs and have no way to critically analyze the content, again, a deep problem consequential to public education.

So, Ted, yes, I just ignored that, a different issue entirely. My own ax is the anti-banking and therefore anti-capitalist aspect of so many conservatives within Objectivism. As I said, I heard it from the Ron Paul people at the LP booth. But, yes, thanks, I should not have let that go and a nod to Reidy for that.

Edited by Michael E. Marotta, 18 March 2011 - 05:05 PM.

Mike M.
-----------------------------------------------

Michael E. Marotta, BS, MA.
Criminology & Social Science


Blogging at Necessary Facts
Website: CSI: Flint (2011)
------------------------------------------------


#13 Ted Keer

Ted Keer

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 3,084 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York City

Posted 18 March 2011 - 05:15 PM

Maybe there is no trend or sub-cultural norm here, but when I read about the gaffes of Michele Bachmann and add those ignorances, I wonder at how the mighty have fallen. In my day, when William F. Buckley and Ayn Rand were alive, conservatives actually knew their US history. Now, they just make it up as they go along.


Yes, that's what I just said to someone five minutes ago about what's going on in Libya. As opposed to the case with Saddam, who was violating the terms of the 1991 Armistice, and firing on us daily, Qaddafi is breaking no agreemeny I am aware of. We legitimized him when he ponied up his weapons after 9/11. There is no cassus belli beyween him and us. There is no presidential authority. No imminent threat. No obvious good guy. No defined finite military objective. No congressional authorization. Yet watching Krauthammer on Brit Hume with Bret Baer, no principled clear cut objection from anyone.



Confession is always weakness. The grave soul keeps its own secrets, and takes its own punishment in silence.

#14 Dennis Hardin

Dennis Hardin

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,494 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Pedro, California
  • Interests:Philosophy, psychology (Ph. D., licensed therapist)

Posted 29 March 2011 - 03:29 AM


Maybe there is no trend or sub-cultural norm here, but when I read about the gaffes of Michele Bachmann and add those ignorances, I wonder at how the mighty have fallen. In my day, when William F. Buckley and Ayn Rand were alive, conservatives actually knew their US history. Now, they just make it up as they go along.


Yes, that's what I just said to someone five minutes ago about what's going on in Libya. As opposed to the case with Saddam, who was violating the terms of the 1991 Armistice, and firing on us daily, Qaddafi is breaking no agreemeny I am aware of. We legitimized him when he ponied up his weapons after 9/11. There is no cassus belli beyween him and us. There is no presidential authority. No imminent threat. No obvious good guy. No defined finite military objective. No congressional authorization. Yet watching Krauthammer on Brit Hume with Bret Baer, no principled clear cut objection from anyone.


You warmongering bastard--sanctioning that "murderous war of aggression" against those innocent Iraqis!! Hang your head in shame--you, you. . . you Objectivist!!!

(This is the Code Pink Low-lying webforum, isn't it?) :huh:

#15 Aristocrates

Aristocrates

    $$$

  • Members
  • 260 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee

Posted 29 March 2011 - 07:49 AM



Maybe there is no trend or sub-cultural norm here, but when I read about the gaffes of Michele Bachmann and add those ignorances, I wonder at how the mighty have fallen. In my day, when William F. Buckley and Ayn Rand were alive, conservatives actually knew their US history. Now, they just make it up as they go along.


Yes, that's what I just said to someone five minutes ago about what's going on in Libya. As opposed to the case with Saddam, who was violating the terms of the 1991 Armistice, and firing on us daily, Qaddafi is breaking no agreemeny I am aware of. We legitimized him when he ponied up his weapons after 9/11. There is no cassus belli beyween him and us. There is no presidential authority. No imminent threat. No obvious good guy. No defined finite military objective. No congressional authorization. Yet watching Krauthammer on Brit Hume with Bret Baer, no principled clear cut objection from anyone.


You warmongering bastard--sanctioning that "murderous war of aggression" against those innocent Iraqis!! Hang your head in shame--you, you. . . you Objectivist!!!

(This is the Code Pink Low-lying webforum, isn't it?) :huh:



You seem to be stuck on this Iraqi stuff. The Iraqi war is a perfectly legitimate capitalist venture. Of course any objectivist would support it. The cost of a life is just one part of the overhead. Well, a soldiers life but Iraqi lives are at no cost. You're a fucking idiot. You denounce pacifist, but who have you had to murder? Are you a soldier, man?

#16 Ninth Doctor

Ninth Doctor

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 4,012 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Fiction authors: Umberto Eco, P.G. Wodehouse, Thomas Pynchon, Douglas Adams, Robert Heinlein

Posted 29 March 2011 - 08:15 AM

As opposed to the case with Saddam, who was violating the terms of the 1991 Armistice, and firing on us daily, Qaddafi is breaking no agreemeny I am aware of. We legitimized him when he ponied up his weapons after 9/11. There is no cassus belli beyween him and us. There is no presidential authority. No imminent threat. No obvious good guy. No defined finite military objective. No congressional authorization. Yet watching Krauthammer on Brit Hume with Bret Baer, no principled clear cut objection from anyone.

I think “regime change” in Libya has been a US foreign policy desire, if not an objective, since Reagan. Anyway, it might be that Obama has been reviewing Harrison Ford movies in his spare time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwQ-TCeM2mU
Prandium gratis non est

#17 Dennis Hardin

Dennis Hardin

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,494 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Pedro, California
  • Interests:Philosophy, psychology (Ph. D., licensed therapist)

Posted 29 March 2011 - 01:02 PM



You warmongering bastard--sanctioning that "murderous war of aggression" against those innocent Iraqis!! Hang your head in shame--you, you. . . you Objectivist!!!

(This is the Code Pink Low-lying webforum, isn't it?) :huh:



You seem to be stuck on this Iraqi stuff. The Iraqi war is a perfectly legitimate capitalist venture. Of course any objectivist would support it. The cost of a life is just one part of the overhead. Well, a soldiers life but Iraqi lives are at no cost. You're a fucking idiot. You denounce pacifist, but who have you had to murder? Are you a soldier, man?


cheerio




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users