Hjr 192

[tdl1]

Hello everyone. Could someone explain what this means.

PUBLIC LAW 95-147 OCT 28, 1977 91 STAT. 1229

I came across this today, there is more to this but
I want to pay close attention to this section.

(2) Section 10 (c) The Joint Resolution entitled " Joint Resolution to assure uniform value to the coins & curr-
encies of the United States." approved June 5, 1933
(31 U.S.C. 463) shall not apply to the obligations issued
on or after the date of the enactment of this section.
Approved Oct. 28, 1977. Is this saying that HJR 192 does not apply anymore in terms of the "OBLIGATIONS"

[Shoonra]

I believe that I had mentioned this on another thread last year.

It means that in 1977 most of the long-term aspects of "HJR 192" were repealed. Contracts of various sorts drawn up after Oct. 28, 1977 could call for payment in gold; another section of the 1977 Act applied to contracts drawn up before 1933 that might still be in effect in 1977 (there were some, not many), that revived any pre-1933 clause calling for payment in gold.
The only things left out were contracts drawn up between June 1933 and October 1977 -- they still couldn't call for payment in gold.

By the way, the legislative history of the 1933 "HJR 192" says that a primary reason for suspending god payments (and replacing them with dollar-for-dollar payments in legal tender) was that, by 1933, the specification of gold as the medium of payment had become far overused in contracts to the point where there was not enough gold to pay all such contracts simultaneously and the resulting requirement to have gold for payment had caused an unnatural rise in the price of gold and a corresponding devaluation of every other sort of currwency.

[gldskr]

So, Shoonra, what you are saying is that HJR192 was the legislation of Gresham's Law.

gldskr

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

By the way, the legislative history of the 1933 "HJR 192" says that a primary reason for suspending god payments (and replacing them with dollar-for-dollar payments in legal tender) was that, by 1933, the specification of gold as the medium of payment had become far overused in contracts to the point where there was not enough gold to pay all such contracts simultaneously and the resulting requirement to have gold for payment had caused an unnatural rise in the price of gold and a corresponding devaluation of every other sort of currwency.

I'd like to see that source Shoonra (I am of the opinion you're misrepresenting).

Also, the only currencies which would have been devalued would have been those not on the gold standard. Many still were, so that's a misrepresentation.

You make it sound as if all the sudden this huge bubble of contracts all became playable at the same time which were payable in gold; that's bunk. The bankers and the Dept of Treasury were derelict in their duty of controlling the amount of outstanding paper currency so that the outstanding obligations were backed by sufficient Gold and Silver reserves. The banks got greedy. They issued far more in credit than they could back in precious metals once the notes were placed in circulation.

The readers should note that what happened in 1933 is being repeated today to a certain extent (to what extent we won't know until this situation is behind us as we are still in the middle of it) excepting that there is nothing backing the paper except the ability to print more paper. Examine the Bear Stearns emergency bail out by the Federal Reserve and Chase.

http://www.nydailynews.com/money/200...s_bailout.html

In 1933 the sheeple were conned out of their gold. Today the cost is the devaluation of the dollar against all other foreign currency not pegged to the dollar. This means "things" will continue to be more and more expensive in the USA as compared to rate of increase of those "things" in foreign nations. Is it any wonder the companies, land, buildings and assets (lumber, mining rights, etc.) are being bought up by foreign investors and Sovereign Wealth Funds?

[tdl1]

many sovereigns base HJR 192 for getting out of contracts
based upon no REAL MONEY to pay debts. But if this act repeals or if the "obligations" does not apply where does that leave the sovereign because now there is no remedy
to get out of these contracts.

[Shoonra]

The legislative history of "HJR 192" is House Report 169 (Committee on Banking & Currency, 5/27/33, 73rd Congress, 1st sesion). Also the debates in the House on May 29, 1933, particularly Cong.Rec. 4525-4526.

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.

GREENWOOD: ... In his inaugural address he {F.D.R.} led us to believe that he was going to throw down the fauntlet to the 'money changers' of America, and I think he is keeping his word with the American peoppe. He is bringing in the Golden Rule in government and doing away with the rule of gold. The depression has demonstrated one fact, among others, that in time of great emergnecy, when the stress is put upon out government, its credit and its financial standing, as in other countries the gold standard has broken down. There is a scientific reason for this. When times are good, any of the money of the country is accepted without question. Gold is not demanded at the hands of the Treasury, but when times of panic and depression come upon us, with a clause written into a bond and many private obligations that they must be paid in gold of a certain standard and fineness, those who may have contributed chiefly to bringing about the money panic or depression want to be in a position of pushing their government into a corner and saying that they stand upon the promise in the bond. With $ 100 Billion of debt, public and private, with something like $4 Billion of gold with which to pay it, we know that the basis for our financial system is too narrow and fictitious. .... The administration is putting our house in order and will meet every obligation.
.....
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?

GREENWOOD: Yes. Its principal value is given because of its monetary value and the authority of the Goverment that makes gold the basis for our currency, creates its chief value. .... There is one thing about this Resolution {HJR 192}; it is destroying the hypocrisy of the previous system we have had and trying to put our monetary system and currency systen upon an honest basis. .... There is no repudiation about this. Every creditor of the United States will receive 100 cents on the dollar in lawful money, Did any purchaser of bonds {=the bonds containing a gold clause} pay for them in gold? He may have, but the probabilities are that most of the purchasers ... paid for them with lawful money of the United States, and they will paid with the same kind of money with which they purchased the obligations in the beginning. ..... I am glad to add my word of praise to the leadership that destroys a gross hypocrisy that has existed for years, claiming that there was some sanctity in gold, while the Depression, not only in this country but in the world, has shown that only so far as governments get behind the gold has it any sanctity; and only so far as the governments will make good on their gold has it any advantage over any other character fof money. So, for one, I am glad to correct this hypocrisy.

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.

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.

[palani]

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.

So that is why Roosevelt increased the price of gold several months after he seized it, yet prohibited anyone still holding gold from profiting from his move? Wouldn't this have made the bubble even larger rather than reducing it?

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.

Lets' try explaining it this way. Tulip bulbs are things that can be owned. Carved round rocks are things that can be owned. The coins in your pocket are things that can be owned. The paper "currency" in your wallet or pocketbook are things that can NOT be owned.

Slavery has been abolished. That means there is no master either. Why not let the STATE be the master then and own everything? Except if the STATE gets to be master then slavery still exists. The institution of SLAVERY was not eliminated, simply restructured. Slaves have no need for gold. Give them CREDIT instead.

[palani]

Duplicate Post

[amenmesse]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

.....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.

My perception says people are choosing to ignore the essential purpose of money, which is to pass a complete title to the object. To quote George Gordons quote, "property and the objects of property are two different things". When we attempt to acquire objects, houses, cars, bread, we seek a complete title to the objects, or complete property claim which is allodial. And this so we can live as non slaves or serfs under the dominion of mankind.This is where money of substance, gold, silver, tulip bulbs will pass a complete title, in the English common law (state common law), but FRN's or choses in action won't pass a complete title in the common law. But how does the Admiralty, Roman system treat title. Even with the denari coins only partial titles were being passed, the uses, the fructus, the usufructory. In this system the individual was "commendo", that what was put in care of" aka pauper/peasant and is used by the government as a taxpayer so HJR 192 is really a mooted issue as to title.

[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.