On Mar 8, 2005, at 10:44 AM, Robert Mulder wrote:
> The FDIC has a different opinion on this matter:
> "It is the opinion of the Secretary of the Treasury that Public Law
> 93-373 did not repeal or alter the so-called Gold Clause Resolution of
> 1933 (31 U.S.C. 463). The Resolution prohibits any contractual
> provision which purports to give the obligee the option of requiring
> payment of the obligation in money or a specified amount of gold.
> Deposit contracts which purport to give the bank's customer such an
> option are therefore rendered legally unenforceable by the terms of
> the Gold Clause Resolution. Contracts specifically payable only in
> gold may be similarly unenforceable where the parties to the contract
> view the gold as a medium of discharging a debt, such as a deposit
> liability, rather than as a commodity to be traded."
Actually, people of both views can be accomodated, just as for some we
live in a republic while others swear it is a democracy.
Some people will deal in debt, and some will not. The reason gold is
money is because it is a store of value and a medium of exchange. It is
perfect U.S. money for transacting common law exchanges of property, or
labor. Notice that even in the secretary's eyes, it all depends upon
how the parties "view" the gold. Isn't that interesting? And notice
the clever slight of hand trying to equate "discharge of debt" (in
equity jurisdiction, no doubt) with "payment" at the common law, which
finally extinguishes debt (while "discharge" merely transfers it to
another party), and usually avoids debt creation altogether. The
secretary depends upon the people involved to have a view. Should we
do some man-on the street interviews and see how many Post-911
Americans have a view on the topic?
The Secretary of the Treasury has to maintain an opinion (but you don't
have to agree with it!) that permits the monetization of debt as
politically driven public policy. But one who claims his rights to
property, and exercises them with gold and silver, cannot be made to
part with his common law substance only to be "compensated" with
"elastic" units of irredeemable bad debt. That result, where the human
suddenly awakes to the fact that he lost his gold and now has a right
to pursue debt in court, until he accepts paper fiat legal tender ( or
better yet, "a deposit liability") is a voluntary action. He must
first have permitted a debt to be created. This requires consciousness
in the moment, and a timely objection when debt is being offered.
Because once a debt exists, so-called "legal tender" can discharge it
by government fiat.
The old method of "cash on the barrelhead" protected everyone, with no
one having to become either a creditor or a debtor, and wouldn't that
feel nice in this time when the more you borrow the richer you become,
when nothing is lent and nothing is paid back? "And yet real goods
and services are transferred to the government."