Why America Must Return To Gold Coinage Circulation In 2013.

[Jonathan Barlow Gee]

Why America Must Return To Gold Coinage Circulation In 2013.

a position paper by: Jonathan Barlow Gee.

on behalf of: the Pythagorean Order of Death.

Aloha,

In this exposition I propose to expound upon an important issue for all of us alive at this time. The fact stands bold and should not now nor ever again be under-stated: America needs a Gold Currency. Why? The Liberty Bell tolls, the eternal question, whose answer is the retreating horizon-line itself, blurring off into the sky above. Why does America need a Gold Currency? Why was it written into the constitution by the nation's founding fathers that "No State shall ... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts" (the US Constitution, section 10: Limits on States; Clause 1: Contracts Clause)? Why was it important for fiat counterfieters to force legislation to circumvent private ownership of gold by US citizens in order to begin spiralling up the modern quantity of "debt"? What is "debt"? If all US tax revenue is less than even the interest owed by the US gov't to the Federal Reserve private bank per annum; and if the entire US GDP was surpassed by the gov't "debt ceiling" in predicted expenditures (as it recently was, followed by the Federal Reserve implimenting "quantitive easing"); then what does the "debt" amount to, aside from the obvious fact of it, which the US gov't in Washington DC remains to blithe to admit: bankruptcy? So, if a private US bank is owed any sum X amount of fiat currency, it (and thus, by taxation, we its citizens) must pay it back in gold. That is the Law. However, if the law impedes progress why not change it? Why not just say, we owe the bank too much, we can and so should, must and will just reposess the bank, thus acquiring all its holdings. In truth, there's nothing preventing it from working just that way. The IRS can excercise a more thorough audit of the Fed than the GAO, and the Fed's long-standing criminal dealings will be aired eventually one way or another, since everyone already knows they funded all the "secret wars" of the 20th (and thus far early 21st) century. So why not just muscle them under by swaying popular sentiment toward looting the banks? Well, for one thing it would work in the short term, but cause a credit-bubble and crunch larger than even the currency-bubble backed by the USD as the WRC right now. And this might very well be a natural result that would need to occur at some point along the line if one were to take this route. But, there's a much simpler resolution to this current "currency" and any potential future "credit" crisis: look at what the current laws are on the books for such a situation, and attempt to follow the advice of our fore-fathers who fought and died for our right to learn from their mistakes. To throw away our responsibility to study their legal contributions to it is to forget our own whole history. In this case, we have the proposition of forcing the US gov't to declare bankruptcy; however this is a lengthy and long terminologied legal proposition, with little hope of either solving the problem in time nor of addressing the real culprits behind the debt-crises. So, we are left only with the third alternative, to study the precident for the modern conceptual "bankruptcy" laws and how they could be applied to the US gov't itself, and that is set in 10:1 of the US Constitution, where it discusses "legal tender laws." If you take out a debt, the debt can be paper, because the paper is only a token of exchange symbolising an "I.O.U." whereby you essentially lease the money from a creditor (preferably interest-free). But if you owe a debt, you have to repay the debt in US Constiutionally "legal tender," ie. gold. So, if the US gov't tanks to the Fed private bank, then those who allowed the easy-money high-spending of the US gov't in the first place prosper at the expense of the tax-payer: they traded us credit on loan with high interest rates and we now have to pay them back in solid gold, just because it's the "Law." So, ultimately, both options seem doomed: either we repo the banks with a run on the dollar, resulting in hyper-inflation of prices; or, alternately, we knuckle-under to the private banking cartel, pay them their gold, or risk becoming their slaves. So, naturally, both these premises appear morally repugnant, despite that either would save us from the worst risk we actually will face if we ignore either choice, that of hyper-inflation occuring despite temporary postponements. So, if we are facing a more or less "certain doom" scenario in our current economic situation, where both our only apparent options are lose-lose situations for us all, then the question's importance is accentuated to the nth. What is the economy, how can we control it, how can we all benefit from it and how can we avoid the seemingly inevitable consequences of the cirsis we've already gotten ourselves into today? I propose to address these issues now.

I. Why Gold Coinage?

There are those in the US Gov't now, post 9-11, who claim the Constitution is no longer relevant. However, we must learn as much as we can from any and all our past mistakes, so if the Constitution was wrong, it stands to reason we can learn how to correct or improve it only by beginning with the document itself as the basis. Now, assuming the fact the framers stipulated gold coinage as the only legal tender of the US, we can argue their case relative to what we have today from several angles:

1) were the framers aware of the possible use of paper money? Yes, and they believed usury and counterfieting were treasons punishable by a federal death-sentence. They were opposed to a central bank for that very reason.

2) why can only gold be used as legal tender in the US? Because the USD was originally defined as being tied to a certain weight of gold. Naturally, now that gold is only seen as a commodity and not used solely as the method of exchange, the values of gold in dollars and of dollars in gold fluctuate. However, prior to the 1970s, the USD was backed by a weight of gold. This gold is the value of money, and not the paper itself. The paper was originally intended to only be used as an "i owe you" bill. Thus, according to the laws of the US Constitution, no state can counterfiet bills and call it money if it has no backing by a solid value. In theory, one can substitute any commodity for the "value of money," so long as "money" is ONLY seen as on loan in exchange for a solid comomdity collateral. You can then trade the "money" without loss to the collateral; this is, of course, the cause of our present problems: without use of the solid material commodity as the monetary exchange unit itself, no other solid material commodity can be substituted equally effectively for it as the unit of exchange. In short, if gold is solely the collateral commodity, any other good traded instead of gold would be worth zero in comparison to it. The argument is ocassionally made, for example, to base our economy on oil, not gold. This would, aside from raising all prices at the rate gas prices increase now, prove the same mistake as our basing it on paper: substituting anything for something else, saying something is worth any value X in terms of any other commodity or service, depends on the value of the other thing that is substituted for; something that symbolises value can have no other intrinsic value in itself. Gold can be used as an exchange unit symbolising any value; other than this gold is a useless commodity.

3) Is there enough gold? A common argument made now against returning to use of gold coins is that there simply "isn't enough gold." This depends on the rate of exchange to currency. For example, if the USD does result in hyper-inflation of staple-prices, then a loaf of bread would cost X amount in USD and only Y amount in gold, where X > Y. The moral of this is that if the USD hyper-inflates, gold would not; except in relation to the USD. So, this sounds like a good argument to substitute gold for the USD prior to the USD possibly hyper-inflating staple-prices. It is; it's also a better argument for the US to be the nation that sets the trend for this activity for other nations, for us to "lead by example." The notion of there "not being enough gold," falls apart only if we wanted to impliment a gold coin as a global currency instantly, and then only because of the different values of national currencies in their international exchange rate. If the nation of the US, and only the US, wanted to impliment a gold coin as a national currency instantly, then there would technically be a surplus of gold. Let's say, for example, the USD began to hyper-inflate staple-prices tomorrow. We would want to use it to buy back our gold holdings from China, who purchased them from the Fed. We would, if in hyper-inflation, be able to purchase back less gold; but this gold would still be equal to a larger amount of food. Essentially, even hyper-inflation is not an insurmountable problem, if we eventually do resort to use of gold as the monetary exchange unit. Obviously, the sooner the better, and that is why I am drafting this position paper now, in 2012. So, let's say that the US gov't has X amount of USD with which to purchase Y amount of gold, where the numerical sums measuring X are long and the sum of the weight of the gold ocmmodity very small in comparison. Almost any sky-high sum of X to buy any infinitesimally small sum of Y is better than none; but the sooner we can impliment this action the better as well. But let's say that, the US gov't has Y amount of gold to translate into Z amount of food, and that the loss of apparent revenue in terms of the large sum X of USD for the small sum Y of gold has been overcome. Y gold buys Z food, regardless of the apparent cost of Z in terms of X. So, let's say that the US has Y gold, and the world has Z food. The US then budgets and trades out its Y amount of gold to the rest of the world in exchange for their imports to the US of Z sum of food and other staple-goods. The US "leads by example" in this regard, because the USD is still capable (right now) of buying back more gold at its current rate than any other national (or regional) currency alone. The US would seem to be "hoarding gold" in this action, but would in reality be "leading by example" by then gradually re-trading its gold to a more balanced global market in exchange for better budgetted goods and only necessary services. The problem is NOT that there is NOT enough gold to perform such an action, the problem is that there could be too little for us to even buy food with a hyper-inflated value-less dollar if we wait too long before we do so. The amount Y of gold we would hold would then set the base-line tone for the amount of per capita-national holdings in a global gold coin economy; however, the amount of gold the US could spend on food and staple-goods in a year would likely be able to grow and increase as the amount of gold the US could afford to buy back would increase in porportion to its budgetted savings.

4) Is it feasible for us now, beginning in 2012, to return to use of only gold coins for money? Besides the popular sentiment to do so, nothing else is really pre-requisite to being able to accomplish such a transitional phase. The US gov't however remains blissfully ignoring this fact as of yet. There are arguments that can be made that the planchette factories are not in place to mint gold coins fast enough to provide the US national economy with enough gold to circulate fast enough for everyone to be able to begin substituting it for paper fiat currency USD bills. If the alternative were that a "run on the dollar" were to occur in conjunction with hyper-inflation and US bank holdings NOT be retrievable in gold, then obviously it is preferable at least to try. However, in truth there is a risk of under-production due as much to un-preparedness to mint gold coins en masse in terms of factory production capacity as due to the Fed having sold almost all the US gov't holdings of the gold commodity to the IMF and China. The reason the Greek gov't is undergoing a revolution now is that due to the Fed bailing them out in USDs instead of gold, they have cut their "austerity programs" (equivalent to the US SS programs) and declared, essentially, bankruptcy to their US creditor, the privately-owned Fed. So, assuming by the time you are reading this, as it has not yet, no hyper-inflation of staples-prices and no "run on the dollar" has occured, it is not too late to impliment such a policy as switching the USD's circulation sum, X, into its equivalent quantity in holdings of gold, sum Y. Assuming all else were untouched, then the quantity of money in circulation within the US borders could be substituted by gold in a day. Then the only question is, how much gold would the quantity of the entire US circulating liquid assets of our fluid economy buy?

5) How can we impliment this trasitional phase to replace all circulating cash currency within the borders of the US economy with gold coins? The answer is two-fold: A) repeal legislations that enact legal stipulation against gold ownership, that tax import and that terriff transport of it, and pass firm legislation that the US gov't (indpependently of the Fed private bank's holdings alone) will acquire until it does possess enough gold to honor with weight of it all backings of consumer savings' accounts, mortgage-assets holdings and stock-rated bonds held by FDIC member banks, for a start. Ultimately it would help a little to audit the Fed, but if it is possible to pass legislation to effectively out-maneouver it in its own tactics, it serves the same purpose as simply abolishing it would. B) enforce FDIC member banks to begin circulating the gold coins in exchange for currently circulating paper cash, and set up a new pricing standard based on assuring all transactions will be able to translated into a gold coin amount as easily as possible. For example, if USD cash begins to decrease in value rapidly (as in the on-set of hyper-inflation), gold values would remain relatively stable; however the translation per transaction value ratio would have to remain relatively stable, and would thus depend more or less entirely on the gold half of that equation. Thus, if there's not enough gold, there would not be enough to back it in the event of a sudden increase in value of USD paper currency. Again, it's not at all a question of "not enough gold," because any gold is more than none; it's a question of providing additional consumer safety assurances and increased paramilitary presence in the form of protecting and servicing the gold dispensary customers, ie. the FDIC-insured banks. Finding people to fill jobs protecting the transportation and distribution of a "new" gold currency during such a transitional phase would require implimenting a new sector of the economy requiring the homeland-deployed US military, private military contracting firms, state-militias, acting public police agencies and all gun-carrying citizens to co-ordinate into a single sector of security providers for the transfer of the US gov't holdings of gold fairly to the US citizens to use as circulated currency. There would have to be a single law stating quite effeciently how to solve both point A) and point B) and that law should insure a new level of consumer protection and improving global market confidence. The Gold Coin Act of 2013 must be such a law.

6) Will implimenting such a transitional phase to restore the US economy to a circulated gold coin result in accomplishing the goals of insuring consumer protection and improving global market confidence? Yes, it is possible to replace to all paper money with gold coins in bank-holdings in a single day; within a week all paper money could be purged and replaced by gold coins. However the trickiness results not only in distributing the holdings of gold to individual banks to begin the transitional phase of re-distribution, but in providing a temporary transitional currency exchange rates window between the value of the USD Fed notes and the price of the gold commodity on the international commodities exchange market. For example, if you have gold being traded to FDIC member banks at the rate of gold on a Monday, then there is a "run on the dollar" on Tuesday, the value of cash drops and the cost of gold in exchange rates sky-rockets, then by Wednesday the cost of gold would have already become too high to back in exchange by the gov't to the FDIC banks if they were to run out and need more to redistribute it in exchange as more people close their credit accounts, etc. Essentially, the argument here runs that implimenting a return to gold coin circulation is a "doomsday" scenario equivalent to causing a "run on the dollar" and destroying the economic value of the Fed's paper money. There, thus, would need to be included in the passage of a gold coin act into law a stipulation clause stating quite clearly that no such scenario would be allowed to occur, and this would mean backing this statement up with the aforementioned necessary creation of a local-military sector: soldiers for the banks. If, in short, everyone emptied their entire accounts in terms of dollars out into a sum of gold in one day, there would need to be assurances made this would not result in either public mass riots nor in martial law enforcing a police state.

7) Ultimately, we must ask, Why Gold Currency? Why do we need a gold coin? Why here, why now? We, the US people, have to "take our medicine." We have to accept that people will want to steal gold and that banks are allowed to hire security to protect their holdings and transportation of gold. Aside from this, we have to restore our own individual liberties to the highest extent we possibly can. If banks can hire security to protect large sums of gold, each citizen who uses gold coins ought to be allowed to carry a gun. This means trusting everyone alive to be responsible with a weapon, even teaching children the importance of and how to properly handle a gun. This level of trust is only possible in a truly free and open society; we can only restore individual rights to gun ownership if we stop legilsating on a national level what constitutes a quality curriculum in publically funded schools. If the gov't gives an anonymous contribution of funds to the implimentation of education via socialised welfare through the education dept., it does not mean it is buying the right to control the curriculum of schools to teach us all to advocate the causes of certain select special interests, such as anti-gun rights lobbyists, anti-tobacco lobbyists, pro-foreign militarism no-bid contractors, etc. Teachers do not want to tell their students how to behave; they want to teach them their topics, not enforce social  political platforms. Likewise, we should strive to keep our own agendas out of our higher learning instiutions altogether. But, again, this can only happen in a truly free and open society, which is alot different from what we currently have.

II. Why America, why 2013?

There is a New World Order. There has been a move toward global government for the last 100 years at least that has yielded us, today, the United Nations. The United Nations arose as a result, a veritable afterbirth, of the Nuremberg Trials. The World Court was summoned to try to Axis forces political leaders for war-crimes against humanity; as a consequence, the League of Nations (which was originally created by the CFR who also bankrupted Germany and then funded the NAZI party) was reformed into the modern UN. The UN, as a platform for all nations to use to petition for redress of grievances, succeeds. Beyond this the UN is powerless, and the ineffectuality of NATO and coalitions of mixed national "Allies" to provide troops for any effective mulit-national military reprisal against individual national tyrants is a joke. For an African nation to be filmed while starving without even being able to invoke the international aid of global community groups like the WHO and the Red Cross is a travesty of bigger proportions even than 9-11. The UN provides no foreign aid and no foreign military support. It is effectively useless aside from as a platform for its member nations to stand on and petition for redress of grievances. Now a world court, on the other hand, is essentially the opposite of the modern UN. In point of fact, a truly just world court would likely be trying the very heads of those nations whose ambassadors sit on the security council of the UN now.

So, we have little choice but to use the US as an example, whether the current US gov't system and those who support it and benefit off it like that or not. Perhaps this sets my opinion on this matter apart from many of my fellow Americans; perhaps not. Perhaps most of us agree in silence; perhaps only a few of us disagree at all, but theirs' are the only voices we hear, as with the modern media. Who knows if I am right or wrong? History will tell.

If we want to return the wealth to the people, we have to do it directly, by re-implimenting the gold coin as the sole legal tender in the US. Gold = NOW.

PEACE.

- Jonathan Barlow Gee

Tallahassee, Florida, USA

January 8th and 9th, 2012.

[Jonathan Barlow Gee]