"Gold goes into hiding only if the private sector has enough power to avoid the government and continue commerce else where. "
"No hyperinflation, just deflation."
I fink u freeky. I really cannot get inside your head on this, and I
doubt I have the right to even try to get you to see things differently.
For the record, I'll clarify a few loose ends.
a)i. I recall a legend, maybe King Croesus or King Midas. He had got himself
into financial trouble. He solved the problem by asking his creditors to
bring with them the value of his debts in gold coin. When the creditors arrived
the gold was taken from them and the values of the coins over-stamped. What was
"1" became "2". What happened afterwards was not mentioned. I will explain
the relevance of this below.
b)i. Imperial Rome had a problem with debasement of its silver coinage.
b)ii. Beginning from around 225AD onwards, (and earlier, but a separate problem)
normal commerce began to be replaced by barter, and taxation was somewhat
replaced by appropriation. After an attempt at reform in 275AD matters began
to really fall apart from 300AD onwards.
b)iii. Around this time, by edict and by practice, a gold bar was worth more
than the equivalent weight in gold coins, causing the government to demand that
dues be part paid in gold.(see Prodromodidis - Nr85 p19) At that point Rome
was rejecting the legitimacy of its own "silver" currency in part, arguably a
default on its debts.
I am seeking here to distinguish between actions of the State on the one hand
to control inflation, and on the other to manage its financial obligations.
"A measure of Egyptian wheat, for example, which sold for seven to eight
drachmaes in the second century now sold for 120,000 drachmaes." Bartlett,
(incorrectly) referencing the end of the third century.
(see
https://mises.org/library/price-fixing-ancient-rome for better work
on dates, their economics are at best questionable)
b)iv. Caesar crossed the Rubicon in 49BC, entered Rome, and seized the Roman
Treasury held in the Temple of Saturn. (Anyone else noticed that banks try to
emulate our folk-memory of Temples?) Temples seemed to be relatively safe from
pillage by successive Emperors, hence by the time Diocletian became Emperor,
gold had gravitated there. Hence there was a financial incentive for a new
Emperor to convert to Christianity. A conversion that would give Constantine
free rein (excuse the pun) to plunder pagan resources, something to consider
when thinking about the events 312-335AD, and the founding of the Byzantine
empire.
c)i. A notable omission from your text was mention of the 1933 executive order
criminalising "the possession of monetary gold by any individual, partnership,
association or corporation" within the continental United States. This appears
to be a modern version of a)i above. It may be more complicated than it
already appears. Allegedly in 1932 $1,233,844,000.00 of foreign gold left the
USA, and in 1937 $1,139,672,000.00 returned. (World Almanac).
Complications aside, this was a transfer of power from the citizen to the State,
or more precisely, from the citizens to the banks. I have not read up on this
criminalisation of ownership to make any further comment, but it would seem to
fall into the class of gold in hiding.
As I said above, I am not trying to change or influence thinking, I find I
cannot see the world through TPTBNW's eyes sometimes, and I find that intriguing.
Also, this is not advice on gold as an investment. DYOR.
And a couple of separate matters:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/middle_ages/henryii_law_01.shtml"Thirdly, a frequently used test of the existence of the state is that it
should have a monopoly of legitimate violence. In the middle ages - as in
all societies - law was only one method of resolving disputes."
See also Brehon Law - the definition of "legitimate" can be surprisingly
flexible. It seems more a method of classification than a definition.
@TPTBNW - congratulations on your milestone.
