Hjr 192

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

At the time of HJR 192, the US govt was required to pay gold in various transaction with foreign countries. Inasmuch as, after HJR 192 had been effective in enabling the govt to acquire the gold at the then prevailing rate, the decision to increase the exchange rate had little or no effect on domestic business, but did improve the exchange rate for the US govt's payments to foreign countries.

Whether or not you agree with that or any argument in support of HJR 192, the Resolution did provide that debts in dollar amounts which had previously specified payment in gold would be paid, dollar-for-dollar, with other US legal tender. Which is to say, the contracts existing in 1933 would be paid with US currency (other than gold) at the face amount which had been specified for payment in gold. The HJR did not enable anyone to flimflam on their debts; they still had to pay them, in full and on time, but with other US currency.

Another way to explain this is through the aspect of the 1913 Federal Reserve Act FRA furnishing elastic currency. Anyone could redeem their FRNs in lawful money (US notes) or gold at a Federal Reserve Bank should the local bank not have the gold on hand. Read the terms on this 1928 FRN:

http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf...ot_dollars.jpg

The important thing to remember is that the charters for the Fed banks was for a duration of twenty years. (attached)

The remedy was written into the FRA (attached) and so people began to consider that the charter would expire on the Fed banks and if they were last in line, like Shoonra explained above, they would not get any gold or even lawful money (US notes) that could be redeemed in gold. With the Fed banks' charters expiring the future of FRNs was doubtful for any confidence.

FDR, being a banker's President made it illegal to own gold. HJR-192 is what structured a trust that basically said the US government would be bonding the people who endorsed the private currency of the Fed FRNs until the country was back on its feet. Which happened in the late Seventies:

http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf...l_PL94-412.jpg
http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf...tipulation.jpg

It became "legal" to own gold again and even stipulate payment in gold in a contract. However this was basically engineered by a Goldman Sachs banker at the time named Alan Greenspan. Who really just did it so that the US would pioneer SDRs and gold is still pegged at $42.22/ounce earmark by the UN's IMF today. Look carefully at the footnotes:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releas...0108assets.htm




Regards,

David Merrill.

[tdl1]

So other forms could be surety bonds right.

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

The effect of the gold clauses, prior to the HJR, was a demonstation of how Gresham's Law could be manipulated, in that gold was not inherently better currency but, because of the gold clauses in various contracts, was given an artificially inflated demand, its value rose out of all rational proportion to its realistic value.

Gold was given an artificially inflated demand? Do you actually think through some of the statements you make before you hit "Submit Reply"?

Demand was exactly what it should have been based upon market forces, unless you're willing to acknowledge the market wasn't really a free market economy. The problem was the fiscal irresponsibility of the US Government as illustrated by GREENWOOD's comment:

With $ 100 Billion of debt, public and private, with something like $4 Billion of gold with which to pay it..

Originally Posted by Shoonra

The effect of the gold clauses, prior to the HJR, was a demonstation of how Gresham's Law could be manipulated, in that gold was not inherently better currency but, because of the gold clauses in various contracts, was given an artificially inflated demand, its value rose out of all rational proportion to its realistic value.

You've got your facts twisted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham's_Law

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Economists, even those of the giold school, will find it very hard to explain why coins manufactured out of a metal likely to have originally been mined centuries ago in a foreign country and by slave labor -- and more might be mined and made avialble at any moment by anyone almost anywhere -- and which cannot be eaten or burned for fuel or otherwise made useful, is supposed to be intrinsically better than currency manufactures out of wood pulp but having the backing of (one of) the most robust nations on earth, or, for that matter, better than using tulip bulbs or big carved round rocks as currency.

You can't be serious! Any high school graduate can explain the why, let alone an economist. There's a reason that renewable resources which are easily manufactured will, over time, decrease in value when compared to a limited resource which is increasingly more difficult to locate, process and manufacture into a final product to meet demand.

As far as the couple paragraphs you provided from Greenwood and Martin explaining why there was a "bubble" as you claim, the reason was due to the fact that the US. Government only had 4% of the required gold reserves to meet all it's financial obligations. In addition, consider the private obligations of the banks and it's obvious to anyone capable of rational thought can see it was the fiscal irresponsibility of the banks in concert with the fiscal irresponsibility of the US Government that led to the situation that arose.

[gldskr]

FreeFromContract

Thank you for your reply. It equalled my sentiments and saved me the trouble. I/we owe you one.

gldskr

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

As a matter of fact, instead of showing the gold was more "solid" as money, the contractually-driven demand for gold coinage demonstrated that gold's value at the time was mostly bubble. This is indicated by the colloquy between Rep. Martin of Colorado and Rep. Greenwood of Indiana on pages 4526-4527.

The propaganda that FDR was someone who took on the bankers is yet another in a series of lies told in the pursuit of power in politics.

The fact is that FDR had many banking friends. Who were the biggest contributors to FDR's presidential bid? Names like Hearst, Rockefeller, Morgan, Baruch, Du Pont, Astor.

George Foster Peabody, a very close friend of FDR, informed him about a young polio sufferer, Lewis Joseph, who seemed to have recovered his ability to walk by swimming in the buoyant waters of a Georgia resort called Warm Springs. A resort owned by his friend Peabody and the resort that FDR later purchased.

These facts can be uncovered by anyone investing just a few minutes of research.

So it is easy to see the comments by Greenwood and Martin was nothing more than granstanding and politics as usual. Of course they couldn't admit that the fiscal problems had been caused by Congress' fiscal irresponsibility (in concert with the Dept. of Treasury and the bankers), allowing the US Government to accrue debt which was more than 2400% of the gold reserves at the time.

Originally Posted by MARTIN

The principal value of the gold dollar is the fiat of the Government, and if it were stripped of that fiat and thrown into the market as a commodity, its value would largely disappear, would it not?

And here we are today with gold at $1000/oz.....

....without the benefit of backing any currency.

[David Merrill]

Indeed. I enjoy bringing some sense to the pragmatic protectionism, appeasement and dissociation from reality that Shoonra writes about. I may even search around for his post where he says that the gold seizure was good because most Americans were so poor anyway. And where he says that the Americans who were thrifty enough to have gold to turn in were "hoarding" it.

http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf...March_1933.jpg

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ollections.jpg

I think the point is that we have entitlement, according to the courts to redeem lawful money, according to the original remedy within the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. It is simply conditioned out of us to bother. We accept private credit by training and therefore are programmed to increase the debt instead of redeem the debt.

Almost everybody anyway... (attached)



Regards,

David Merrill.

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

Indeed. I enjoy bringing some sense to the pragmatic protectionism, appeasement and dissociation from reality that Shoonra writes about. I may even search around for his post where he says that the gold seizure was good because most Americans were so poor anyway. And where he says that the Americans who were thrifty enough to have gold to turn in were "hoarding" it.

http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf...March_1933.jpg

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ollections.jpg

I think the point is that we have entitlement, according to the courts to redeem lawful money, according to the original remedy within the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. It is simply conditioned out of us to bother. We accept private credit by training and therefore are programmed to increase the debt instead of redeem the debt.

Almost everybody anyway... (attached)

Regards,

David Merrill.

That's right David. Shoonra is forever the revisionist to support his "pragmatic protectionism" views and attitude. The excesses of the economy of the roaring 20's should have been the opportunity the Federal Government and banks took to get their house in order. Instead, they choose to rape the American people.

[David Merrill]

The American people laid back and took it. That's not rape.

What I mean is that all that gold, insufficient as it is with a earmarking of $42.22 and $1008 on the same ounce in two different currency systems boasting themselves to be "US dollars", all that gold is still being held in trust. The LoC I attached was honored.

The main issue that Shoonra and I diverge on about HJR-192 is Trebilcock v. Wilson. Once you tender a proposition of legal tender, and it is refused, the debt is waived.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

What I mean is that all that gold, insufficient as it is with a earmarking of $42.22 and $1008 on the same ounce in two different currency systems boasting themselves to be "US dollars", all that gold is still being held in trust. The LoC I attached was honored.

The main issue that Shoonra and I diverge on about HJR-192 is Trebilcock v. Wilson. Once you tender a proposition of legal tender, and it is refused, the debt is waived.

Regards,

David Merrill.

David,

Could you briefly describe where in HJR-192 the tie exists to the Trebilcock case, which provides the relief of the debt being waived?

Thanks.

[David Merrill]

I was hoping Shoonra would debate it again. That makes it much clearer to the readers.

In Trebilcock shortly after the Civil War and Legal Tender Cases;

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ll_juliard.jpg

a fellow contended that he was not obligated to accept US notes in repayment of a contract. The courts upheld that since US notes are legal tender and as good as gold, he was required to accept them as legal tender. Then of course since US notes are lawful money = US dollars and until 1933 were fully redeemable in gold, it is inherently understood that if he refused to accept the US notes for payment, once ordered by the court, that he was waiving that the debt existed at all.

Since 1933 - HJR-192 it may be ingrained that legal tender is no longer redeemable in lawful money or gold. (Examine the stipulations on this 1928 FRN)

http://Friends-n-Family-Research.inf...ot_dollars.jpg

However, the remedy to "lawful money" is still provided for by law. And by demanding lawful money instead of accepting private credit from the Fed, one may avoid the irrecusable obligation of the Income Tax liability to file a return of income.

For some insight read this 1984 Article along with the video...

http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/convincing.html
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...06869308133588




Regards,

David Merrill.