Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TruthQuest
Mandalisj,
I appreciate your posts. We are all seeking clarity and you do contribute toward that end.
From http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+31USC5112
'(7) A fifty dollar gold coin that is 32.7 millimeters in
diameter, weighs 33.931 grams, and contains one troy ounce of fine gold.'
One troy ounce of fine gold (.999 purity or 24 karat) equals (1/.999=1.001) almost exactly 1 troy ounce.
One troy ounce of standard gold (.9167 purity or 22 karat) equals (1/.9167=1.0909) 1.0909 ounces in full weight. This makes the actual weight of the gold content almost exactly equivalent to 1 troy ounce.
As to the fifty dollar ‘Eagle’ gold piece;
If it were to be minted in fine gold:
1/42.2222=0.0236842229916963 ounces (1 dollar weight in fine gold).
0.0236842229916963x 50=1.18421114958481 in actual weight at dollar par value.
It is minted in standard gold:
1.0909/42.2222=0.025837119 ounces (1 dollar weight in standard gold).
0.025837119 x50=1.291855943 in actual weight at dollar par value.
As you can see from the actual weights from both purities of gold, they are greater than the actual weight (a dollar par value = 42.2222 dollars per troy ounce of fine gold) (see your wikipedia link above) of the gold coin that is defined in the US code. The gold coins minted by the Secretary of the Treasury are not at a dollar par value as expressed in other US codes. If you read through the entire WAIS page I have linked to above you will see that all of the coins listed are not minted based on any natural reasoning. The current $50 gold Eagle appears to be a debased US coin or the US code is in conflict with itself.
I hope this adds to your clarity as you have already added to mine. |
Thanks for that. I think it was Jerry or Thom who was proposing that the conversion between ounces and troy ounces supported the Treasury's $42.2/ounce price for "earmarked" gold held in international accounts.
Looking at your figures, it looks to me like you concluded the opposite of the figures, but I am going with your conclusion - presuming I am not following the figures correctly.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releas...1207assets.htm
Summarizing 2005 for an example year:
US Assets are in total $65,127 Millions, $11,043 is held in gold stock while the majority, $37,838 is held in foreign currencies. The footnote on gold stock says:
Quote:
|
1. Gold held "under earmark" at Federal Reserve Banks for foreign and international accounts is not included in the gold stock of the United States; see table 3.13, line 3. Gold stock is valued at $42.22 per fine troy ounce.
|
Table 3.13 line 3 about the $8,967 Millions says:
Quote:
|
3. Held in foreign and international accounts and valued at $42.22 per fine troy ounce; not included in the gold stock of the United States.
|
Technically this reads that the US has retained $11,043 Millions in gold stock and submitted $8,967 Millions to the IMF Fund in support of the fictional basket - SDRs. A technical reading though, shows that Jeffrey Edward is correct - gold stock is valued at $42.2/ounce. All of it.
Quote:
|
Gold stock is valued at $42.22 per fine troy ounce.
|
This is what it said in §5117 of the US Code Title 31 too. From 1934 to 1979.
And the notes indicate the last revisions were in 1982:
Quote:
Source
(Pub. L. 97–258, Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 984.)
|
Quote:
|
The words “of 42 and two-ninths dollars a fine troy ounce)” are substituted for “at the legal standard provided in section 449 of this title on October 19, 1976” because that was the legal standard in that section on that date.
|
So what we are literally looking at is a change that Shoonra spotted to support his argument elsewhere, to quash the idea that gold is still valued by the Treasury at $42.2/ounce (
http://www.suijuris.net/forum/127657-post45.html ) but does not actually say that.
In fact, Cornell and Congress have had 26 years to put the Amendment into §5117 and have yet to do so?
Interestingly this circles us (or at least me) around to research done by authors of
Guardians of the Grail and
Holy Blood, Holy Grail. Public Law 94-564 - its Senate Report that I have been attaching here says:
Quote:
The issue was not resolved at the September, 1975, [sic]IFM/IBRD meeting, but a consensus was reached among the industrial countries that if the French and the Americans could solve their differences, the others would accept the compromise. Accordingly, the U.S. took advantage of the opportunity to work with the French to design the foundation of the new international monetary system. The drafting was carried on in relative secrecy until the French-U.S. agreement surfaced at the November, 1975, economic summit conference at Rambouillet, France. The other countries attending Rambouillet had no previous knowlege of the document, although they were cognizant of the French-American negotiating effort.
...The Americans countered with the argument that the central governments did not have the resources to stabilize the market without each economy reaching its own internal equilibrium. The French came to accept this position.
The actual document still remain classified as secret...
|
Not only do we capture the essence of an alliance between France and America being accepted among "the nations" - the financial ministers of all the Bretton Woods nations, we find that the US Code itself never implemented the 1982 amendment
which only suggested that the US dollar value is pegged to whatever market value it might hold - some $900/ounce on the current day you evaluate it. Read that amendment again - it says the value of the dollar is $42.2 ounces over time too. It is simply legaleze saying they will change "$42.2/ounce" to "The value on that day" which was $42.2/ounce.
This sends me to the stacks. I want to get into the current US Code books as well as those cited Reports linked on the Cornell link. It is just that I like to rely on physical books in the federal repository rather than what comes up on my computer screen - even from Cornell.
I'll be back - (spoofing a famous actor/governor)
David Merrill.
