About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 20

Thursday, November 22, 2007 - 2:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In regard to the Liberty Dollar, Ted writes,
Why were these coins printed with the words USA, "Trust in God" and a "dollar" value? Why not siply give the weight and purity of the coin with the name of the mint? The Feds are implying (according to the NY Sun, which broke the story) that this was a case of counterfeiting. It seems obvious that provoking the Feds to such and action was the intention of the minters.
The U.S. government mints one-ounce told coins called "American Eagles." On the face of the coin is a statue of liberty with the word "LIBERTY" directly above it. On the obverse side is "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA," "In God We Trust," and "50 DOLLARS." Obviously, the coin's market value isn't $50. Right now, it's selling for $875. Is this a case of misrepresentation -- an attempt by the U.S. government to deceive people into thinking that the coin is worth only $50? No? Then why are the words "20 DOLLARS" on the Liberty Dollar viewed as an attempt by NORFED to deceive people into thinking that they're getting something they're not? It's not as if some private printer produced worthless pieces of paper that resembled $20 dollar bills and then tried to pass them off as Federal Reserve Notes (which are themselves worthless pieces of paper!).

Besides, the Liberty Dollar's real value -- what people are willing to pay for it in the open market -- is $20. That's what I paid for it, because it's beautiful silver coin -- much nicer looking than other once-ounce silver coins whose price is less. And if I'm willing to trade that coin for some other product, instead of for paper money, why can't I?

The Feds argue that the Liberty Dollar is a competing currency, but as I understand legal tender laws, all they require is that a creditor accept Federal Reserve Notes as final payment if they are offered. I have never heard of any prohibition against trading gold or silver if the seller is willing to accept it in payment for a good or service. Gold or silver is a commodity, and exchanging one commodity for another -- as is done under barter -- is perfectly legal. That is how money as a medium of exchange originally evolved from a barter system of exchange. Gold (or silver) became the commodity of choice, because it was so widely accepted in payment for other goods and services.

In any case, buyers and sellers should be free to arrange whatever terms of payment they choose and to write these into a contract. What business is it of the government's to dictate the terms of their voluntary agreements -- to tell them that they have to exchange goods or services for paper money?

- Bill


Post 21

Thursday, November 22, 2007 - 8:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I heard yesterday on Kudlow & Co. that Home Depot and WalMart had been accepting the Liberty Dollars.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 22

Friday, November 23, 2007 - 8:02amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

5 minute video of Kudlow and Bernard von NotHaus on the Liberty Dollar

 


Post 23

Monday, November 26, 2007 - 12:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill, you may be misunderstanding my point.  By denominating the coin with a dollar value, the minters were opening themselves up to an (obviously petty, but nevertheless possible) charge of deception or counterfeiting.  Since actual $US have no inherent value, while coinage in precious metals have the value of their own metal content, I find it silly to label hard currency with the name of fiat currency.  It's like a man with good credit applying for an credit card under the name of his dog.

The obvious questions are, why call the coins dollars, and why not label them by their content and purity?  The obvious answer is that the people minting the coins were doing so as an intended provocation.  The use of "Trust in God" and "USA" was not unintentional.  They obviously wanted a test case, not just a viable and non-controversial alternative.  Else why not 5g Gold 99% pure And Liberty Mint, Evansville Indiana?

Well, now they have their test case.

Ted Keer


Post 24

Monday, November 26, 2007 - 12:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted one might consider the dollar value imprinted on the coin as the price for the coin Liberty Dollar is selling it for. Just as you went into a grocery store and saw a price sticker for a can of vegetables. You have a right to post your price on your product.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 25

Monday, November 26, 2007 - 1:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
just got this in on the email......

http://blog.mises.org/archives/007475.asp


Post 26

Monday, November 26, 2007 - 7:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Bad Arguments for Good Causes

John, the sale price of certain items such as books is printed on them, usually in small print. But I have never seen a book the cover of which was marked "$5" alone. One can simply assert that the dollar value printed on the coin is the sale price, but then why not print "$20" on a plastic slug and assert that the slug has that value? Because it doesn't. And the actual value of these coins is not the dollar amount printed on them either. To assert that it is is either arbitrary or special pleading or a simple denial of reality. If we were already on a hard currency standard, then the question would be moot. But since we are not, printing anything other than the mass and purity of the coin is either meaningless or a provocation. There is a point in such a provocation. But if no provocation is meant, then while the coins may indeed be more valuable than fiat paper, any dollar amount stamped on the coins is nothing more than an arbitrary number. It is one thing to support hard currency or a good monetary policy. But doing so "in drag" by purposefully making real coins look like fiat money is as principled as making a case to remove Saddam (valid) because he possessed nukes (invalid) or arguing that Giuliani is the best current mainstream candidate (plausible) because he looks good (implausible) in drag. A bad argument for a good cause is worse than no argument at all.

Ted Keer

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 27

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 - 4:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The Mises article that Robert Malcom pointed to has the usual conservative nonsense in it.  First of all, it was never illegal for Americans to own gold bullion.  Even after Presidental Order 6102, you could own up to $100 in gold coin, and those with a recognized need (jewelers and dentists among others) were also left free to work.  While I recognize the evil intent and consequence of Order 6102, claiming that it made owning gold illegal is false. President Franklin Roosevelt's first Secretary of the Treasury was William H. Woodin, himself a recognized numismatist who saw to it that "historical" gold coins (Minted before 1933) remained available.  (See here: www.coin-newbies.com/articles/gold_never_illegal.html)

On a more subtle point, the author conflates the words "Greek tyrant."  The original Greek tyrants were merchants in the cities of Ionia whose rise to power was financed by the first coinages, then in electrum.  It is true that three hundred years later, Dionysius of Syracuse was a tyrant at a time when most cities were democracies or oligarchies.  However, the story in the article presented is misstated.  Here are the facts from Nobel prize winning economist Robert Mundell:

In 388 or 387 BC Plato made the first of his three visits to Syracuse. Whether the idea derived from Plato, or from frequent earlier trials with overvalued money in the Greek states, Dionysius issued tin coins around this time overvalued four times.  The idea would be consistent with Plato--at least the later Plato--who held in The Laws that domestic money should be non-exportable, restricted in supply, and exchangeable with "Hellenic" money at what amounts to an exchange control authority. Dionysius' first issue must have been accepted because he tried it again, on the second occasion by overvaluing silver coins twice. Nevertheless, although he compelled these coins to be accepted under penalty of death,  the penalty was insufficient to keep these coins in circulation at their nominal value and they soon fell to their commodity value. Whether the story told by Plutarch, that Dionysius got rid of Plato by sending him to the slave market at Corinth, where several philosophers were present by a happy chance so they could buy his freedom, is true or not, Plato's intervention into the practical game of power politics proved to be a dismal failure. -- From Uses and Abuses of Gresham's Law in the History of Money.
Also, I concur with Ted Keer that calling privately struck silver and gold rounds "dollars" is purposely misleading at least and just plain ignorant at worst.  As has been demonstrated repeatedly, calling bullion by the name of money of account (dollar, franc) is a basic error when done in ignorance and a basic crime when done knowingly. 

More to the point, we have enjoyed a wide range of privately-issued gold and silver bars and rounds for a full generation now and no one ever had this kind of a problem with the federal government.  Over the years, I have had little gold bars from Engelhard, Mocatta, and the Austrian Mint.  Silver rounds and art bars are too common to go into detail on.  Many even mimic the classic heads of Miss Liberty as well as other icons from US government coins of the 19th and 20th centuries. No one has ever had a problem. 

Finally, for all of its errors in theory and practice, the US Treasury and the US Mint have been fighting hard against a motley gang of second-handers who thinly disguise coin-like objects and sell them via mass media.  It is as if someone made a dark brown liquid called "Cocca Colla" and used script logos, etc. Barry Goldwater, Jr. sells his services as a marketer for the National Collector's Mint of Westchester, New York. http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0824biz-goldwater0824.html
One of the ingredients in this noxious mix is the "Republic" of the Marshall Islands which contracts to have these coins made.  That much would be fine... except ...
From the Usenet Newsgroup, rec.collecting.coins --

Q: I have a collection of The Milestones of Space Exploration $50 silver Proof
Coins issued by the Repulic of the Marshall Islands ... They are legal tender of the Marshall Islands and are .999 pure silver.
A:  You may also note that the Marshall Islands has since rescinded their offer
to exchange these coins for legal tender.

[To be fair, Canada did the same thing for its $5 silver coins as the price of silver rose and fell greatly around $5 over the years. -- MEM]

On the one hand, you should be free to buy whatever you want and certainly the US Government has a dismal record when it comes to managing circulating money.  On the other hand, these knock-offs definitely infringe on the common perception of US Treasury and US Mint products. 
And again, honest sellers and buyers of gold and silver rounds and bars have been trading without interference for over 35 years.


Post 28

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 - 7:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael:

I'm getting a disconnect between your statements and Wikipedia. Would you please explain the differences? It seems that your point is that there were some circumstances where one could own certain amounts or certain kinds of gold. For instance, could I have owned substantial amounts of Krugerrands or Maple Leafs (if they existed) during that period?

 ... it was never illegal for Americans to own gold bullion.  Even after Presidental Order 6102, you could own up to $100 in gold coin, and those with a recognized need (jewelers and dentists among others) were also left free to work.  While I recognize the evil intent and consequence of Order 6102, claiming that it made owning gold illegal is false.

Wikipedia:

On April 5, 1933, President Roosevelt outlawed the ownership of gold, by passing Executive Order No. 6102 which stated: "All persons are hereby required to deliver on or before May 1, 1933, to a Federal Reserve bank or a branch or agency ... all gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates now owned by them or coming into their ownership on or before April 28, 1933." (Presidential Executive Order 6102, Section 2). Supported by this confiscation of gold, during the Great Depression, President Franklin D. Roosevelt revalued the dollar to 35 per troy ounce (112.53 cents per gram) of gold.
 
Sam


Post 29

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 - 10:14amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit


Ted, I often find your posts to be infuriating. While we may have some common values you are dancing around a very salient fact that producers always place arbitrary price stickers (or with liberty dollar a stamp) on their products with many different sizes, shapes, and colors.

John, the sale price of certain items such as books is printed on them, usually in small print. But I have never seen a book the cover of which was marked "$5" alone.


What the hell difference does that make? So it's a big sticker, get over it Ted! Is there a law on how big the price sticker or stamp is supposed to be? No! But tell me comrade, what law would you propose restricting the size, shape and color of that price sticker/stamp? Maybe it should be no bigger than 5% the size of the product? Must be Times New Roman font?

One can simply assert that the dollar value printed on the coin is the sale price, but then why not print "$20" on a plastic slug and assert that the slug has that value?


Your propensity for horrible analogies is another thing I find infuriating. The Liberty Dollar is a coin made up of silver, to which aesthetic value is attached to it which required a process of production to turn silver into the stamped coin that they sell it as. I'd hardly compare that to a plastic slug but, if you like plastic slugs, and someone put a price sticker on it for $20, what oh masterful economic Czar is your rule for saying one should not sell it?

Because it doesn't. And the actual value of these coins is not the dollar amount printed on them either.


Says who!!!!! You oh masterful economic Czar? A value of a product is determined by the willingness of the seller and buyer to an agreed upon price. Beyond that, there is no other determining factor for what a material object is valued. Should we appoint thee now Central Economic Planner? What's your 5 year plan comrade?



But since we are not, printing anything other than the mass and purity of the coin is either meaningless or a provocation. There is a point in such a provocation.


Utterly ridiculous again Ted. What do you mean "provocation" and how is it any just to say the actions of the irrational are excused away because they were provoked to take action? This argument Ted is actually no different in principle than saying American foreign policy is what provoked 19 Islamo-fascists to hijack and kill thousands of Americans on 9/11. And I know damn well you don't believe that, so stop with your ridiculous argumentation Liberty Dollar deserved what they got because they "provoked" someone. This is a "liberal" argument and you're better than that.


Post 30

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 - 12:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sam, the Wikipedia article on 6102 cites my article in Coin Newbies as a reference.  I have a somewhat detailed article that I wrote for Coin World about 1999-2000.  However, these two citations should answer your questions.

Presidential Order 6102 April 5, 1933
Section 2. All persons are hereby required to deliver on or before May 1, 1933, to a Federal Reserve Bank or a branch or agency thereof or to any member bank of the Federal Reserve System all gold coin, gold bullion and gold certificates now owned by them or coming into their ownership on or before April 28, 1933, except the following:
(a) Such amount of gold as may be required for legitimate and customary use in industry, profession or art within a reasonable time, including gold prior to refining and stocks of gold in reasonable amounts for the usual trade requirements of owners mining and refining such gold.
(b) Gold coin and gold certificates in an amount not exceeding in the aggregate $100 belonging to any one person, and gold coins having a recognized special value to collectors. of rare and unusual coins.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/executive_orders.php
Presidential Order 6260 August 28th, 1933--
 no returns are required to be filed with respect to
(a) Gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates in an amount not exceeding in the aggregate $100 belonging to any one person;
(b) Gold coin having a recognized special value to collectors of rare and unusual coin;
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/executive_orders.php

In order tro understand what $100 in gold coin was worth back then, here are some census figures for Per Capita Income  of that time.
             1933   1932
GDP      449      471
GNP      451     474
Pers Inc 373      400
Disp Inc 365      393
www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/07s0655.xls

So, given that the average factory wage in America today is about $35,000 per year, we are talking about $8,000 or $9,000 in gold coin or about 10 ounces give or take today.  It was five ounces before the order and three after. And the numismatic exception had no limit..  An interesting footnote is my reference to the sales of gold coins pegged to the gold market in London from Numismatic Scrapbook of that time -- and that included $3 golds which you cannot touch for bullion prices today.


Post 31

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 - 12:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael:

Then it is clear that it was illegal to own gold except:

(a) Gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates in an amount not exceeding in the aggregate $100 belonging to any one person;
(b) Gold coin having a recognized special value to collectors of rare and unusual coin

Sam


Post 32

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 - 10:05amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael:

I respect your authority as a numismatist. Could you please explain how the World Reserve Monetary Exchange gets away with its promotional campaign using the word "coin", which is reserved for US currency? These "coins" are obviously almost valueless and they make their money by framing.  They are represented as "Presidential Golden Dollar coins" although they don't show any denomination on the coin. These ads are surely masterpieces of deception.


Could you comment?

Sam


Post 33

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 - 6:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
1.  Cops can't be everywhere at once.
2.  They seem to be selling US Mint products as US Mint products in nice packages.  I am not sure what you see wrong in this, short of paying $200 for $100 in coins and two cardboard "gold foil" boxes.

I never heard of these guys before, but there are so many out there, apparently, that keeping track must be a full time job for someone.


Post 34

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 - 8:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
These guys aren't small time. I've seen full page ads in daily newspapers and in Newsweek and they clearly are implying that the customers are getting "the U.S. Government's dazzling new Presidential Dollar coins." I have seen these ads for a number of months.

I understand that a "coin" must be legal government-issued currency — and they also call it "money."

We don't know what is engraved on the reverse, or what the metal is. On one hand they are telling us that they are "the US Government's first ever Presidential Dollar coins" and then disclaim: "THE WORLD RESERVE MONETARY EXCHANGE IS NOT AFFILIATED WITH THE US GOVERNMENT OR ANY OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCY."
?????


Post 35

Thursday, November 29, 2007 - 3:01amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Are they not acting merely as a distributor of the coins?

Post 36

Thursday, November 29, 2007 - 7:00amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jonathan: Maybe that's how they do it.

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


User ID Password or create a free account.