The case against Dr. Paul

[dash]

Going to bed now, don't wait for any responses from me...

-Dave

 

[WildCat]

Wildcat are you really believing what you're writing, or are you deliberately trying to obfuscate the issue? Which document are you basing your statement on this time?

Oh dear FSM...

In 1963, the only Silver Certificates were $1 bills. $5 on up were already Federal Reserve Notes and had been for many years. Public Law 88—36 (signed into law by Kennedy) authorized the issuing of small ($1 and $2) Federal Reserve Notes for the first time to replace the Silver Certificates. But new Silver Certificates still had to be issued in the mean time because when one was exchanged for silver the note was shredded to keep the equilibrium in place. So the problem was there would be a shortage of $1 bills in circulation until the new $1 Federal Reserve Notes could be issued. The Executive Order merely authorized the Treasury Secretary to issue $1 Silver Certificates without an order from the POTUS (prior to this only the POTUS could order new Silver Certificates to be issued) during this transition period so there would not be a shortage of $1 bills in circulation. Once there were enough $1 Federal Reserve Notes in circulation the Treasury ceased issuing new $1 Silver Certificates, this happened in October 1964.

I don't know how else to explain this in any simpler terms. The fact is Kennedy signed into law the death knell not of the Federal Reserve Bank, but of currency backed by silver.

 

[David Wong]

109 posts in 36 hours.

 

[Corsair 115]

And the relevance is...?

The U.S. is not reliant on Middle Eastern oil as it once was. Canada continues to increase its importance as a supplier of crude oil to the U.S. Thus, there is even less need for the U.S. to dominate or control Middle Eastern oil.

If the US can control Middle Eastern oil, that forces other nations to require dollars to buy oil.

The U.S. can't even tell OPEC what to do; how is it ever going to exercise control over oil production in the Persian Gulf? Also, see above.

Keeps the dollar strong.

No, the currencies of countries which actually produce the petroluem are the ones who benefit. The rise in the price of crude oil as a much sought after commodity has benefitted the Canadian dollar quite nicely since we are a petroleum exporting country.

The Middle East has the largest proven oil reserves on the planet.

Depends considerably on one's definition of what constitutes a proven oil reserve. The number of barrels of oil locked up in the Alberta tar sands, for example, is second in the world only to Saudi Arabia's reserves.

It's all about the dollar. It's why we're there.

If so, then it has been an abject failure. The U.S. dollar has weakened, not strengthened. The Euro and the Canadian dollar have recently reached historic highs against the U.S. dollar.

 

[dash]

Oh dear FSM...

In 1963, the only Silver Certificates were $1 bills. $5 on up were already Federal Reserve Notes and had been for many years. Public Law 88—36 (signed into law by Kennedy) authorized the issuing of small ($1 and $2) Federal Reserve Notes for the first time to replace the Silver Certificates. But new Silver Certificates still had to be issued in the mean time because when one was exchanged for silver the note was shredded to keep the equilibrium in place. So the problem was there would be a shortage of $1 bills in circulation until the new $1 Federal Reserve Notes could be issued. The Executive Order merely authorized the Treasury Secretary to issue $1 Silver Certificates without an order from the POTUS (prior to this only the POTUS could order new Silver Certificates to be issued) during this transition period so there would not be a shortage of $1 bills in circulation. Once there were enough $1 Federal Reserve Notes in circulation the Treasury ceased issuing new $1 Silver Certificates, this happened in October 1964.

I don't know how else to explain this in any simpler terms. The fact is Kennedy signed into law the death knell not of the Federal Reserve Bank, but of currency backed by silver.

You're merely repeating yourself. "Oh dear FSM..." I interpret as an attempt to redirect the issue away from your own inability to admit to a mistake, or demonstrate the mistake I'm making.

Please respond to this quote, you are not responding to this.

Your own link (Law 88-36) describes how there are no taxes on transfers of silver bullion. This is what you'd do if silver was money. You don't pay taxes when you change 2 five's for a ten. It also describes how holders of silver certificates can exchange them for silver. This is because the silver certificates are backed by silver. That means there must be a mechanism for a person holding such a certificate to go get silver -- if he wants to. The article also says the Secretary of the Treasury must make sure there is enough silver held to back all outstanding silver certificates. This is also a healthy requirement for silver as money. It says excess silver may be sold or coined or whatever, if so desired.

Nowhere does it intimate that the silver certificates should be phased out, as you claim.

Ditto my request to the other guy. Can you
1) Admit I'm correct, or
2) Explain the mistake I'm making.
Don't just fade away. Then later call me a loon

I'll give you that you didn't call me a loon, but your "Oh dear FSM..." is equivalent.

My description above is based on your link here:
http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cg...entity=EcoNatRes.MinYB1963v1.p1010&isize=text


-Dave

 

[dash]

If so, then it has been an abject failure. The U.S. dollar has weakened, not strengthened. The Euro and the Canadian dollar have recently reached historic highs against the U.S. dollar.

Of course it's a failure. The US hasn't finished capturing middle eastern oil. It also can't succeed anyway. The point is capturing middle eastern oil means the US can control the rest of the world's access to oil. It's not just about controlling US access to oil.

Introducing "oil sands" is obfuscation. We're speaking of crude oil. "Oil sands" exploitation is not economic yet. US has the world's largest reserves of coal, IIRC.

-Dave

 

[dash]

109 posts in 36 hours.

Good point, this isn't a very productive use of my time. I won't be hanging around too much longer though.

-Dave

 

[dash]

Regarding Kennedy + Silver Certificates

Actually this whole discussion is a sideline, we were speaking of general economics and a gold standard. I'm not making any claim that Kennedy was assassinated due to him wanting to get rid of the Federal Reserve. I'm just saying it's a good argument.

I suppose we're getting caught up in interpretation of the legal documents.

Any other questions about economics?

-Dave

 

[Richard Masters]

That is just about the most lame, me-too, knee-jerk groupie comment I've heard this week.

It's hilarious. You guys are all so amazingly ignorant about economics it's laughable. You don't think I haven't heard these same things you're spouting from 99% of all economists in the mainstream media? You're not spouting your own thoughts, you're spouting theirs. You're basically tape recorders.

What's the point? I'm in the 1% minority. You're saying, "Join us. It's bliss!" like zombies. Like you're going to educate me on the error of my ways. Is the purpose to get the overall agreement up to 99.9%? 99.99%? Ah, at last, we all agree the economy is in tip top shape, the US is on top of the world.

You refute my explanations with....ignorance! You don't know the terminology, you don't know the underlying principles. You don't know the history. And I'm spouting "woo"! I'm sitting here laughing. I guess I should thank you, laughter is beneficial.

If you're really curious, I'll explain. Name calling is not refuting arguments.

What is the resistance to the truth? Are you just afraid I might be right? It's like you're all locked in arms, ready for anything. Nevermind you're standing on the deck of the titanic as it's going down. Live together, die together!

That's the whole point though. The US is washed up. Pretty soon it'll be just another nation among many. I look forward to a return to Constitutional government. Then I'll be interested in investing back in the US.

-Dave

Wow.

Ignorant people call you names because they can't admit they are wrong.

They are so used to telling people they are wrong, that they can't admit it themselves.

Volatile confuses deflation for inflation, and then dudalb labels you a wooster.

Lame. Talk about Sheeple and mindlessness.

Even if you can't make perfect predictions (which you have admitted) you have educated the people on this thread, people who have nothing but insults for you when faced with compelling evidence that discredits their arguments.

I don't have anything on Volatile. He has at least made an effort to challenge you intellectually. As for the many others, it is pitiful that they engage in the same dirty tactics and mindlessness that they abhor.

I look forward to reading more of your posts, because the mindlessness around here gets old quickly.

 

[WildCat]

You're merely repeating yourself. "Oh dear FSM..." I interpret as an attempt to redirect the issue away from your own inability to admit to a mistake, or demonstrate the mistake I'm making.

Your mistake is claiming that Kennedy supported the continuance of Silver Certificates. That is 100% wrong! The law signed by Kennedy was all about getting rid of the only Silver Certificates left in circulation - the $1 bill. Thus, amending the Federal reserve Avt to allow Federal Reserve Notes in denominations of $1 and $2. Silver Certificates were being eradicated!

Please respond to this quote, you are not responding to this.

It's irrelevant, it's a tax reform. Lots of tax reforms were implemented during the Kennedy Admin.

I'll give you that you didn't call me a loon, but your "Oh dear FSM..." is equivalent.

No, it exasperation because of your bizarre interpretation of the law.

My description above is based on your link here:
http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cg...entity=EcoNatRes.MinYB1963v1.p1010&isize=text


-Dave

And for some reason you focus on a tax reform instead of Section 3.

 

[WildCat]

I'm not making any claim that Kennedy was assassinated due to him wanting to get rid of the Federal Reserve. I'm just saying it's a good argument.

Except that he didn't want to get rid of the Federal Reserve, he gave them the power to issue the only notes they couldn't before - those less than $5!

It's a stupid argument, based on ignorance.

 

[Suddenly]

Except that he didn't want to get rid of the Federal Reserve, he gave them the power to issue the only notes they couldn't before - those less than $5!

It's a stupid argument, based on ignorance.

Just a thought...

1) Was this order reversed after the Federal Reserve had Kennedy killed?

(Is anyone else having flashes of the guy in True Believer who was convinced that the phone company killed Kennedy because he wanted to break it up? Just me? Great movie by the way...)

2) If not, why are there all these federal reserve notes laying around?

(If it was... nevermind...)

 

[dash]

Your mistake is claiming that Kennedy supported the continuance of Silver Certificates. That is 100% wrong! The law signed by Kennedy was all about getting rid of the only Silver Certificates left in circulation - the $1 bill. Thus, amending the Federal reserve Avt to allow Federal Reserve Notes in denominations of $1 and $2. Silver Certificates were being eradicated!

Look, I've refuted this. I've followed your own links, read the content you yourself brought into this discussion. You claim I'm 100% wrong. Present the evidence.

All you're saying is the same thing over and over. But you don't refute my rebuttals, nor present new evidence. You're making the claims. Present the evidence.

Options are still:

1) Admit I'm correct
or
2) Demonstrate my error

I'm completely open minded. I don't care one way or another. But since the discussion came up I'd like to have some resolution.

-Dave

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Wow.

Ignorant people call you names because they can't admit they are wrong.

They are so used to telling people they are wrong, that they can't admit it themselves.

Volatile confuses deflation for inflation, and then dudalb labels you a wooster.

Lame. Talk about Sheeple and mindlessness.

Even if you can't make perfect predictions (which you have admitted) you have educated the people on this thread, people who have nothing but insults for you when faced with compelling evidence that discredits their arguments.

I don't have anything on Volatile. He has at least made an effort to challenge you intellectually. As for the many others, it is pitiful that they engage in the same dirty tactics and mindlessness that they abhor.

I look forward to reading more of your posts, because the mindlessness around here gets old quickly.

It helps if he's right. WildCat has pretty much demolished his arguments...

 

[dash]

Except that he didn't want to get rid of the Federal Reserve, he gave them the power to issue the only notes they couldn't before - those less than $5!

It's a stupid argument, based on ignorance.

Yes it is a stupid argument, and it is based on ignorance. Please share the missing information so those of us who are ignorant are no longer ignorant.

I get the feeling your argument is based on faith however. I don't know the details of any of this. You are making claims, I'm not.

-Dave

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

OK

To conserve the Treasury's silver needs, the Silver Purchase Act and related measures were repealed by Congress in 1963 with Public Law 88-36. Following the repeal, only the President could authorize new silver certificate issues, and no longer the Treasury Secretary. The law, signed by Kennedy himself, also permits the Federal Reserve to issue small denomination bills to replace the outgoing silver certificates (prior to the act, the Fed could only issue Federal Reserve Notes in larger denominations). The Treasury's shrinking silver stock could then be used to mint coins only and not have to back currency. The repeal left only the President with the authority to issue silver certificates, however it did permit him to delegate this authority. E.O. 11,110 does this by transferring the authority from the President to the Treasury Secretary.2
E.O. 11,110 did not create authority to issue new silver certificates, it only affected who could give the order. The purpose of the order was to facilitate the reduction of certificates in circulation, not to increase them. In October 1964 the Treasury ceased issuing them entirely. The Coinage Act of 1965 (PL 89-81) ended the practice of using silver in most U.S. coins, and in 1968 Congress ended the redeemability of silver certificates (PL 90-29). E.O. 11,110 was never reversed by President Johnson and remained on the books until 1987 when there was a general cleaning-up of executive orders (E.O. 12,608, 9/9/87). However, by this time the remaining legislative authority behind E.O. 11,110 had been repealed by Congress with PL 97-258 in 1982.2

(bolding mine)
Source: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3616/flaherty9.html

 

[dash]

And for some reason you focus on a tax reform instead of Section 3.

You presented the link. I followed the link. I read the material. Your link didn't point to any "Section 3". I accepted your link at face value. Did you give me a bogus link?

Can you provide the correct link? I'm happy to read other material. Or perhaps quote it?

"rolleyes" is your little "smiley" insertion above -- what is that all about? Do you need to be rude, insulting, immature? Is this how you "win" arguments? Just insult in many small, petty ways whoever you're speaking with, then when they give up, you claim, "Ha Ha! I win!"

How about winning by actually winning. Instead of trying to change the subject, resort to insults, or simply ignore direct refutation. OR be mature and admit to having been misinformed. I'm prepared to do that at any time in light of new information. Are you?

-Dave

 

[dash]

It helps if he's right. WildCat has pretty much demolished his arguments...

Are you a sock puppet for wildcat?

Can you detail which specific argument of mine wildcat demolished? I'm sorry, a vague intuitive feeling you have doesn't count.

-Dave

 

[volatile]

Volatile confuses deflation for inflation.

No, I was talking about two things (deflation and devaluation) at the same time, and I admit I was rather unclear, hence my retracted post. Apologies for my incoherence; it's been a long time since I studied this stuff.

My point: A Gold Standard first causes deflation then necessitates devaluation, both of which are bad things.

Dash's argument supposes that with price levels dropping, the purchasing power of an individual dollar increases - which is true. In certain cases this can predicate a brief growth spurt. However, if your wealth is illiquid (ie you own land, for example), then your overall wealth decreases, because the price of your assets lowers. A deflating economy also discourages capital investment and stifles productivity and innovation, as I've already explained.

Furthermore, if your economy needs more money and you are tied to hard currency, the only way to increase the supply in the absence of further reserves is a currency devaluation. If you need to spread a decreasing amount of gold between an increasing amount of people, you need to re-evaluate how much each physical slice of gold is going to be worth if you are to have growth. That's devaluation.

From Wikipedia: "Historically, early currencies were typically coins stamped from gold or silver by an issuing authority which certified the weight and purity of the precious metal. A government in need of money and short on precious metal might abruptly lower the weight or purity of the coins without announcing this, or else decree that the new coins had equal value to the old, thus devaluing the currency.

"Later, paper currencies were issued, and governments decreed them to be redeemable for gold or silver (a gold standard). Again, a government short on gold or silver might devalue by abruptly decreeing a reduction in the currency's redemption value, reducing the value of everyone's holdings"

 

[WildCat]

It's amazing how willfully ignorant the Ronulans are, even when confronted with the actual facts of the matter.

In the bizarro world of Ron Paul, Kennedy signing a law allowing the issuance Federal Reserve Notes in denominations that previously had to be issued in solely in Silver Certificates becomes "President Kennedy declared that the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank would soon be out of business."

At any rate, my previous claim that almost all Ron Paul supporters fall into at least one of these 4 categories...

1. 9/11 Truthers.
2. Anti-Fed/gold standard loons.
3. People who are convinced there is a secret push for a NAU, and that NAFTA is the first step.
4. White supremacists who think Ron Paul's denials vis-a-vis the newsletters and donations come with a wink and a nod.

is still accurate.