FW: [tips_and_tricks] Fed's admissions of fraud and confidence games.
- Frog --
I tire of dealing with you on this issue. I make specific points and you
answer with sound bites. Or you misrepresent what I say. Or you ridicule
The bottom line is simple. You can purchase nothing with $10 of gold that I
cannot also purchase with $10 in FRNs. There is no loss in the short term.
In the event that the USA has an economic collapse, which I see as a
certainty, then FRNs will have no value. This is why wise people are using
FRNS to purchase gold, silver and land. If I take $1,000 in FRNs and use it
to purchase $1,000 in gold, then you have accomplished nothing by using ONLY
gold that I have not accomplished by using FRNs and buying gold.
In a purist sense, if I am to deal only with "theology" as you seem to be,
then there is a clear difference between FRNs and money. No question about
it. But if the difference IN EVERYDAY LIFE is less visible, and if both can
purchase the same amount of goods and services, then for most people there
is no short-term difference. Monumental difference in the long-term, but
little or no difference in the short-term.
The issue, it seems to me, is not to preach impractical and only
partially-usable sermons on purist theology. The issue, it seems to me, is
to help people understand what real wealth is and to get them to exchange
their false wealth for real wealth as much as possible.
Can we agree on that?
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.742 / Virus Database: 495 - Release Date: 8/19/2004
- On Sep 3, 2004, at 12:33 PM, David L. Miner wrote:
>I was about to say the same thing. At least I quote directly that to
> Frog --
> I tire of dealing with you on this issue. I make specific points and
> answer with sound bites.
which I respond, while you do not.
> Or you misrepresent what I say.That's hard to do when quoting directly.
> Or you ridicule without rebuttal.If you could quote me, it might be easier not to miss points to cover.
I don't mean to ridicule YOU, but some of the things you believe sound
ridiculous to me. Maybe you should read this document:
See how many of your beliefs conflict with the facts therein.
If you find yourself having to ignore any one fact in order for your
theories to hold water, you will know that they do not hold water.
The article above starts off with some facts that are clearly
destructive to your beliefs.
> The bottom line is simple.Let's see....
> You can purchase nothing with $10 of gold that I cannot alsoIn searching the net looking for something by someone else you might
> purchase with $10 in FRNs.
listen to, I happened across a page where somebody quoted me from 1990:
90Jul19 from Frog Farmer @ Interface
JB>> the opposition maintained that taxes would be assessed on the
amount the silver was currently worth in FRNs and not on the fact that
the 10,000 silver dollars was currency, used as such....<<
Yes, sometimes the government and their feeding dependents want
it both ways. Unfortunately, when something is built on a lie, it
becomes harder and harder to make it conform to reality, and sooner or
later, a phenomenon known as a "Catch-22" develops. See, when the
government quit circulating silver, and substituted debt in it's
place, the free market function caused silver to go up in relation to
evidences of debt. But the government wanted to take advantage of
this, and only count silver coins at their face value, so that when
goons raided your place and seized your stash of silver coins, they
would only credit you with the face value amounts of the coins seized,
and could pay you back in FRNs, if they paid you back at all. So they
take 500 dollars of silver, today available from coin shops in return
for approximately 2500FRNs, and they replace it with only 500 FRNs.
This law that enables this to happen says that all coins and
currencies of the United States, whenever minted or coined, shall be
accepted at face value. That's why some dumb clerks won't give you a
sixpack of cola in return for one dollar of silver - the price of the
cola is 1.29FRN (notice that "$" signs are no longer used on price
tags), and they cannot see the obvious surplus value in your coined
silver. Well, the same law helps you when you sell something. When
you take silver coin, you are willing to lower your price accordingly,
and legally that lowers the selling price and attendent taxes, doesn't
it? - and the buyer can now pay less in property taxes, if those
taxes are figured using the purchase price of the property.
Debt was never, and can never, be declared to be the money of
account of the United States. Money is not denominated in debt - Debt
IS denominated in units of measurement called dollars, and those units
measure whatever it is that is the money of account, not the ABSENCE
OF the money of account (DEBT!)
Thanks for raising that important point, Jim.
----end of quote-----
So, Dave, how does this relate to your statement, "You can purchase
nothing with $10 of gold that I cannot also purchase with $10 in FRNs
above." Can you guess now?
Let me explain for those in the Peanut Gallery. I'll take each concept
as we get to them. The first is the concept of "purchase". Purchase
only means "get ahold of". Purchases can be effected in many ways.
That is a term I rarely use myself - I "pay" for things that I
"purchase", while others "purchase" without "payment", preferring the
expedience and convenience of mere "discharge" of their debts thus
created. Purchasing does not tell us anything of the legal transaction
that occurred, or whether it took place in the common law or the equity
jurisdiction. However, "paying" and "discharging" do tell us
something. One extinguishes the debt forever, the other continues and
adds to the debt (via the interest paid on the debt).
Dave makes the mistake of equating $10 of gold with $10 in FRNs. I
guarantee that my current value $10 legal tender gold coin will
"purchase" FAR MORE than his $10 current value legal tender FRN. It
might require that I find a person competent to know the real value of
each one (someone who recognizes that +1 is not equal to -1). The
world is full of people who know that a $10 gold coin is "worth" about
300 FRNs today. The only people to whom it is not is the IRS. When
they take your $10 gold coin, your account is credited with ten
dollars, due to that law that says that all coins, whenever minted, are
taken at face value. They refuse to take FRNs as payment, but they
will gladly assist in helping you to "forfeit" your FRNs for no credit.
> There is no loss in the short term.Actually, in the short term, the loss is 100% minus the intrinsic value
of a 2.5" x 6" piece of paper with no space left to write on it.
Dave admitted that in a prior post, where he said that the loss would
be mitigated "IF" he could find someone who would accept it while
giving him value equal to or above that for which he accepted the FRN.
Real money does not depend upon anyone in order for it to maintain its
value. It was designed to be a store of value. FRNs were defintiely
NOT designed to be a store of value, one of the main attributes of
> In the event that the USA has an economic collapse, which I see as aHow many times does it have to collapse for anyone to notice? Let's
> certainty, then FRNs will have no value.
see, how many times has the U.S. gone bankrupt without recovery?
How many times has it repudiated its debts? Lincoln did it. So did
Roosevelt. And Nixon. And just this year they set a new record for
issuing unpayable debt. FRNs have less than .05% of the value they had
when I was six years old. Doesn't that qualify as a collapse??
> This is why wise people are using FRNSEven wiser people are avoiding them.
> to purchase gold, silver and land.Why do some feel it necessary to involve FRNs in those purchases? Why
do these people accept FRNs when their true desire is gold, silver, and
land? If they feel "compelled" (like the southerners were compelled to
accept Confederate bills) they are sadly mistaken. No law compels FRN
acceptance except as a judgment creditor, and becoming one of those is
a voluntary act. No one can be FORCED to extend credit to anyone else.
> If I take $1,000 in FRNs and use itBut you cannot take $1,000FRN and "purchase" 100 $10 gold coins, or
> to purchase $1,000 in gold, then you have accomplished nothing by
> using ONLY
> gold that I have not accomplished by using FRNs and buying gold.
even 50 $20 gold coins.
And yes, I accomplish this which you do not: I avoid the equity
jurisdiction so my purchase is not subject to approval of others.
The legislature has far less to say about my "purchase" than it does
over yours. FRNs are covered by myriad regulations, while exchanges at
the common law are an inalienable right.
> In a purist sense, if I am to deal only with "theology" as you seem toHow cute, calling the law I choose not to ignore as "theology"! That's
a way to avoid it!
> then there is a clear difference between FRNs and money.Glad you admit that at least. You'll be on solid ground there, since
even their makers agree to that.
> No question aboutI love that term. As if some people only live on other days than
> it. But if the difference IN EVERYDAY LIFE
yours. Every day in India, were you to voice your views, you might be
considered a fool, since the Indians still have a tradition of using
real money for savings while reserving fiat currencies for governemt
obligations. Aren't you aware that millions of dollars of real coins
are traded daily ("in everyday life") in America alone??
Visit a local coin dealer and have a long conversation about it. You'd
be surprised what you might learn. Ask him if there's a "shortage" of
gold and silver coins!
> is less visible,What is visible means little. Most people keep their monetary affairs
> and if both canThey cannot purchase the same amount of goods and services. Dollar for
> purchase the same amount of goods and services, then for most people
> is no short-term difference.
dollar, gold and silver pruchase more value than do FRNs.
The confusion arises when some people mistakenly equate FRNs with
dollars (+1), instead of "debt for dollars" (-1).
> Monumental difference in the long-term, butIgnore the facts, and keep repeating the lie to yourself. Tell
> little or no difference in the short-term.
yourself, "the words on FRNs are irrelevent".
>I've proven that my methods are very practical, for long enough for
> The issue, it seems to me, is not to preach impractical and only
> partially-usable sermons on purist theology.
them to have been adequately and comfortably tested over 25 years. My
methods are not difficult anymore than not being an alcoholic is
difficult. I do not drink alcohol unless the social setting calls for
it and I feel amenable to it. I drink alcohol maybe six times a year
at most. In the same way that avoiding alcohol use is not difficult,
neither is avoiding FRNs. I now, I know, there are millions of
alcoholics and FRN users. Again, "do not follow a multitude to do
evil". Is that theology, or common sense? Is common sense still
You call a failure to pretend and an unwillingness to avoid hard facts
"purist theology". That doesn't cut it. Remember, we're all in the
"real world" whether we like it or not. You have to be able to accept
all facts, not just the comfortable ones. If 'theology" irks you,
don't complain when I gore your sacred cows.
> The issue, it seems to me, isNo, go one step even further back. Avoid false wealth altogether. Help
> to help people understand what real wealth is and to get them to
> their false wealth for real wealth as much as possible.
people understand what real wealth is and get them to exchange their
labor, time, and property for that real wealth, and not to play
accomplice to confiscation schemes designed to render them insolvent
upon the public debt. Nobody has yet come up with a compelling reason
to voluntarily involve the dishonest middleman of the Federal Reserve.
So what if Congress provided for it? Do you engage in everything for
which Congress provides??
> Can we agree on that?Apparently not! I would rather that the people give up a bad habit
than continue it in the hope that they beat the odds and do not succumb
to it. Most will not beat the odds by definition.
So, Dave, as I see it, you are still having a problem admitting the
difference between "payment of debt" and "tender of debt", between
common law rights and equitible privileges.
Would you like to explain your understanding of each so that I can be
sure that you finally understand?
If you're having a problem with the concepts, I'm sure others are too,
and we're both here to clear up misunderstandings, right?
Mine in more freedom,