Well, hello TDvers. We hope you all had a wonderful holday season…if you're into that sort of thing. Now that you've escaped drunk uncles, petulant nieces and nephews, and dry turkey, we trust the wonders of holiday conversation have left you with a lot of queries, questions, and conundrums for TDV's staff. As always, we're here on Fridays to provide you with the answers.
On to the feedback…
CONSFISCATING GOLD?
Hello Jeff and Gary,
I wonder about the possibility of the US confiscating gold as FDR did in the thirties. Is it feasible, is it possible? The US still seems to dominate and manipulate the show, but things have changed considerably since then. China, India, and many others with an interest in gold have to be reckoned with. I cannot wrap my brain around all the possibilities and consequences of gold confiscation. My biggest interest is in silver. Considering the huge industrial use, confiscation would be more complicated. I have many questions but few answers. Your thoughts on these subjects would interest many people.
Jeff, I missed seeing you at the last couple of conferences in Vancouver. I hope to see you at the Resource Conference next month.
Thank you,
RB
Gary’s Response:
TDV Golden Trader editor Vin Maru stepped in to help with this one:
I’ve seen so much chatter and talk about gold confiscation from the West. It's next to impossible to say how desperate they get or what they will do.
One thing for sure is that the Middle East, Russia, China, India, most of Asia and now Central and South America are buyers, and they will most likely not confiscate gold so the West is only shooting itself in the foot if it does.
It really is a Western problem created by shorting the market, so they could get desperate and confiscate gold but that won’t really resolve anything. They did in the 1930’s and that didn’t do anything to the solve the problems except US citizens lost all their gold and the ability to protect their purchasing power. If they confiscate again, it really does show the weakness in the Western financial world and the loss in faith of Western fiat currencies will only accelerate. This is almost counter intuitive so I would almost say they won’t confiscate it unless they want to destroy fiat currencies, which is always a possibility if one world government and one world currency are the objectives.
Either way, most Western citizens don’t even own gold so what is there really to confiscate? The bigger issues is the hedge funds and ETF’s in the West that own gold; they are more at risk of confiscation, that is if they even really own any gold. There has always been questions around GLD and SLV since they are set up by the same financial institutions who are the biggest shorts in the market so their holdings will always come into question. Anyway those holdings would be the easiest to confiscate. Gold held outside the regular banking system will be much harder to confiscate, which is why we suggest diversification outside the Western banking system. The safest thing anyone owning gold can do is not let their governments know they own it or have it in a place where their gov’t can get their hands on it under false pretences.
–Vin Maru
I would just like to note, RB, that I also am much more concerned about silver. As you've pointed out silver still is less of a monetary stand-in than gold in the modern mind. Its uses are mostly industrial…but for a while there it was the kind of investment return that might get the government's attention. There is no history of silver confiscation in the US, however; the government simply pulled it from circulation after they (and/or the central bank) had devalued the currency too much. But the feds didn't look at silver in the 30's as they mugged the public for its gold or during the 70's when silver made a bigger splash than gold did. Of course no one here can predict the future, but I'd say that the odds on silver being confiscated are vanishingly small. That doesn't mean, however, that the feds won't be keeping an eye out on silver transactions to make sure they can "confiscate" silver profits as capital gains…
And I simply don't bother buying gold because I think silver is such a better bet. But gold still has its merits…and I certainly wouldn't mock anyone for holding gold instead of silver. What I would question is their decision to hold most or any of that gold in the US. Further, I'd definitely recommend they find out how to get their gold "outta Dodge" by clicking here.
ONE-WORLD MONETARY SYSTEM
Greetings:
It is hard for me to imagine that those who manipulate/manage the worlds largest economies are just simply stupid and locked into their fiat money paradigm so firmly that they don't see the abyss before them. There seems to be only one ultimate end to the spend, spend, tax, tax, print, print policy: collapse on a monumental scale. However, when that day comes it seems logical to me that the Fed, IMF, World Bank, and the central banks of England, the EU, Japan and China will all collaborate together and ride in on a white horse to save the world with a new and improved fiat monetary system for all. Can't you just see the paper money with environmentally themed pics of dolphins, elephants, and butterflies for the various denominations?
So what do you think – are they stupid with no end game in mind, or will they institute the International Monetary Unit? Is this their ultimate plan?
Best regards,
Chris H.
Gary’s Response:
It's an age-old question that keeps us up at night, Chris: Are they evil…or just stupid?
If you're of a more conspiratorial bent, then you're likely to lean toward believing they're all evil and completely aware of the harm they cause…That they know exactly what they're doing, that they know how many millions or billions of people they're screwing and they just don't care because the system of fiat currency and corporatist intermingling of big business, banking and government keeps them on top.
On the other hand, maybe the politicians and central bankers are just as hubristic as any human being, and full of conviction that the bad habits that keep them temporarily cozy are okay. Maybe some or most or all of the power elite we know about feel that way, while the puppet masters who sit in shadow above know better and just use the Bushes, Obamas, Hillaries and Krugmans of the world to keep the bleeting masses of human sheep in line.
Personally, I don't see the government/state and central banks as one unified evil group mind. Of course these institutions themselves are inherently destructive. But the individuals who make them up probably really believe that they really have the ability to keep not just the fiat money game running, but also the whole essentially violent pardigm of the state — at base an institution for the chattel farming of human beings — going.
But they're wrong. The fiat money systme must ultimately collapse. I know it seems like the damned thing is as immortal as the central head of the Hydra, but this is when it helps to take the long view. Civilization has for all its history been built on some ruling criminals extracting the fruits of the labor out of the masses either through force (overseers, police, soldiers) or fraud (priests and bankers). Yet while the human experience in living in large settlements started out steeped in the brutality of political force, it has been moving away from that direction with increasing speed in the last few hundred years. All the state can do with its regulation and violent monopolies and politically-backed lie of a currency is push the world back into barbarism…undo all the progress that freedom, free markets and quality-of-life-improving consumer culture has made.
Remember, the power elites have benefited from freer markets like everyone else (note that the US, the biggest, baddest state ever, got that way because its governments allowed more freedom than just about any government in history ever had). While a pharoah might have enjoyed the political power to coerce others violently, his material comfort was a joke compared to that of even the working poor of today. Trying to control an increasingly free and enterprising world will only guarantee a halt to the progress the elite have come to enjoy as much as the rest of us. Of course, that's something they either don't appreciate because of ignorance or don't mind because their greatest pleasure comes from bossing people around, not from having nicer and nicer things that make life easier and more fun, like air conditioning and the Internet.
So "will" they institute an International Monetary Unit, complete with environmental propaganda on the face of the bills? Maybe. They're certainly much more likely to keep the game going through another round of fraud than do the honest thing and let it all collapse. Will it "save the world"? Ha! No more than new currencies ultimately saved the Weimar Republic.
THE TAKE ON SANDY HOOK
Dear TDV,
First let me say that I’m firmly in the libertarian camp when it comes to economics and just about everything else. I personally dealt with depression in myself as well as in members of my own family. My younger brother (4 years younger than I) committed suicide at the age of 39 ( in 2011). My father attempted suicide twice in his life; didn’t succeed. My maternal cousin is a psychiatrist. I am a practicing physician.
The antidepressant drugs have been under scrutiny for years. Initially with Prozac in particular there was a scare years ago that this drug could actually cause increased suicides. If a person is very depressed and has no energy or motivation do to anything, the taking of Prozac or these other drugs can, at first, give the person a boost in energy levels to where they can actually have the ability to act on the suicidal impulses. It's not fair to implicate the drugs per se as the cause of homicidal or suicidal behavior. I personally experienced a major depressive episode and took Prozac. I remember how it helped me tremendously. These drugs have helped people all over the world to avoid suicide and to mitigate the terrible effects of major depression.
The problem is with the environment in which they are prescribed. Once again state intervention is at fault. Because of government intervention in medicine the quality of mental health services has declined tremendously. People are getting these drugs who probably shouldn’t and some people who should be observed very closely in some kind of facility are not getting the care they need. There unfortunately are plenty of people who despite these drugs continue to be depressed and also there are many people who commit suicide despite being on these drugs. Most of these suicides do NOT involve the killing of other innocent people ( as in my brother's case).
I’m sure that in a free market these drugs or others like them would be developed and used and valued by a free society. It’s probable however that the way in which they are used would be much more circumspect and conservative.
Mike in NJ
Jeff’s Response:
We're sorry about your brother, Mike. Truly. But we would invite you to watch the following video about the nature of these drugs and how mental and emotional healing are accomplished without them, as well as — like you said — the damage caused by the way they overwhelmingly tend to be used by so many mental health "professionals". (And note that she often uses the name "Adam Lanza" as a stand in for other kids like him whom she's treated.)
We completely agree that the pharmaceutical industry would look entirely different in an environment without government interference. Then the pharmaceutical companies would have to actually serve their customers, make them better and suffer the consequences of doing them any harm. As it is, however, Big Pharma gets to poison human nervous systems for profit, occasionally driving some of the more vulnerable victims to murderous acts.
What really disgusts us in this case is how the whole world rushes to look at the tool in mass killings only when that tool is a firearm. I guess I shouldn't be too surprised. There is the old excuse that guns are designed to kill. So when a madman runs over a crowd of teenagers or stabs a couple dozen small children, people remind themselves that cars are meant to be driven without killing people and butcher knives are meant to help prepare non-human mammals for dinner.
It also strikes us here at TDV as a little suspicious that the government is just fine with pharmaceutical companies funneling psychoactive agents into the general population, yet when someone inevitably loses their sanity and kills while on these drugs, the government ignores the drugs and focuses attention on the guns.
HYPOTHETICALS FOR GARY
So, Gary…
You recently wrote:
"…..The truly free world will be one of pristine environments and technological wonder…in which good and amazing things will have become so cheap that humanity will spend most of its time in leisurely pursuits, living scandalously long and happy lives."
Let us imagine that the triumph of freedom and / or anarchism was reached and this DID NOT HAPPEN:
Now what?
Would you still prefer to live in freedom and anarchy, even if, say, the outcome was poorer war, with much fewer material good, tough work and shorter years, but everyone is free to decide for themselves, and the aggression by the state is virtually unheard of?
Yes or No ?
Mava
Gary’s Response:
First, I don't play games of imaginary Saw, like..
"If it would save the world from an extinction-level asteroid strike, would you kill your baby daughter…?"
Or…
"If it meant you could have any woman in the world you wanted, would you cut off your own pinkie…or someone else's pinkie…?"
These scenarios posit physically impossible causalities…trying to see what level of evil or harm someone would cause in order to get to some greater good.
Luckily for all of us, the universe doesn't work quite that way. Doing good, though sometimes hard and though often requiring a dose of patience or a bit of discomfort, generally produces more good. Similarly, more freedom produces more happiness than the evil of less freedom.
In the real world, or course, each of us can indeed increase our own material good at the cost of someone else's harm. I could rob and rape to get money and sexual satisfaction. But I don't. In the same vein, allow me to answer your question: I will not suffer fundamental evil for an increase of material comforts. Again, luckily, freedom keeps making life better for the most people.
