Honda Car Forum

On Dec 20, 5:17 pm, John David Galt <j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us>
wrote:
> pkbrandon wrote:
> > If Federal commitments like T-Bills and the FDIC are not honored, then
> > currency is not likely to have any value either; it's just another
> > Federal promise to pay.
>
> I'll bite: to pay what? If you mean gold, that promise ended in 1973.

Actually, what ended in 1973 was the Silver Certificate (the gold
standard was ended in the '30's).
from Wikipedia:
"In March 1964, Secretary of the Treasury C. Douglas Dillon halted
redemption of Silver Certificates for Silver Dollars. In the 1970s,
large numbers of the remaining silver dollars in the mint vaults were
sold to the collecting public for collector value. Silver Certificates
were abolished by Congress on June 4, 1963 and all redemption in
silver ceased on June 24, 1968. Paper currency is still valid legal
tender without the Silver Certificate, instead being backed simply by
the perceived strength of the U.S. economy. According to the U.S.
treasury, "The notes have no value for themselves, but for what they
will buy. In another sense, because they are legal tender, Federal
Reserve notes are 'backed' by all the goods and services in the
economy."[1]"

But you have a point -- currency is no longer backed up by an offer of
direct exchange for a specific commodity.
Although, one might say that the Federal Reserve backs up currency by
accepting it from banks in exchange for electronic funds, and you can
use currency to purchase Federal securities.
So what's the point of putting it under your mattress? It has no
intrinsic value, as noted above, which was MY point.
If the economy goes under (and it's becoming apparent that if the US
economy goes under so will the rest of the world) we'll be left with
barter. What can you stash that someone else would take in exchange
for food?

The reason one might stash cash under the mattress is to protect it from
creditors of bust banks.

As a number of the major 'high/main' street banks in the UK are now largely
under government ownership the risk of default is reduced, plus the major
creditor would be the taxpayer...

DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
---
"pkbrandon" <pkbrando@hickorytech.net> wrote in message
news:79177e55-44fe-4c49-a8db-c99a90ed7003@u18g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
[...]

> So what's the point of putting it under your mattress? It has no
> intrinsic value, as noted above, which was MY point.
> If the economy goes under (and it's becoming apparent that if the US
> economy goes under so will the rest of the world) we'll be left with
> barter. What can you stash that someone else would take in exchange
> for food?

I could not find Consumer Reports requesting a congressional hearing
in any news story. Please provide a link. Thanks, Dave

On Dec 10, 6:22*pm, Comments4u
<comment...@nospam.mindspring.com.invalid> wrote:
> The line of companies willing to beg for money from Congress has just grown
> longer. Consumers Reports has requested a Congressional bail out hearing.
> In its petition, Consumers Reports cites the costs of massive restructuring
> due to circumstances totally beyond its control. *Consumers Reports claims
> that since it doesn't take advertising, it is the only unbiased source of
> product information available to consumers, and thus has a vital role that
> must be preserved.
>
> The magazine's anticipated restructuring costs are due to the impending
> demise of GM, Ford, and Chrysler. *With those companies gone, and only
> foreign cars to rate, CRs reliability ratings will indicate a statistical
> impossibility: *all vehicles are better than average.
>
> It was originally thought the data could be adjusted at minimal cost using
> standard statistical methodology so an appropriate number of vehicles would
> be rated below average. *However CR learned standard statistical
> methodology cannot be used to ajust data not compiled using standard
> statistical methodology.
>
> The compilation of CRs reliability data starts when someone subscribes to
> the magazine. *They then read an article in CR on the vehicle they own
> which tells them whether its good or bad. *Then they receive the
> reliability questionaire, which they answer according to the CR article.
>
> "Somehow we have to get some vehicles rated below average", said CR
> spokesman Justin Jest *"but we can't just produce a bunch of negative
> articles on foreign vehicles over night. *It takes time. *And money. *We
> need and deserve government help. *This problem is not of our making"
>
> Initially, negative articles are planned on the companies formerly
> associated with the Detroit automakers, Isuzu, Mazda, and Mitsubishi. *A
> template for the articles has already been prepared. *"Estimated
> reliability is suspect, as <Isuzu/Mazda/Mitsubishi> was formerly associated
> with <GM/Ford/Chrysler>." *But still, that won't be enough as these
> companies have minimal market share.
>
> "They're going to have to take aim at one of the big boys to get the
> numbers" said Joseph Camel of the Brand Research Institute. *"They're
> counting on India's Tata Motors coming to America, but while that will give
> them the bottom end, the numbers will be too small."
>
> Mr. Camel thinks Kia is the only possible target. *When asked if perhaps
> Toyota or Honda might be a better target for lower reliability ratings, Mr.
> Jest responded "No, we have a policy at CR against attacking people's
> religion".

On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 06:18:51 -0800 (PST), dave.leader@gmail.com wrote:

>I could not find Consumer Reports requesting a congressional hearing
>in any news story. Please provide a link. Thanks, Dave

Perhaps this will get you started on understanding what has happened:

http://tinyurl.com/yjm842

--
Dan.

>> pkbrandon wrote:
>>> If Federal commitments like T-Bills and the FDIC are not honored, then
>>> currency is not likely to have any value either; it's just another
>>> Federal promise to pay.

> John David Galt wrote:
>> I'll bite: to pay what? If you mean gold, that promise ended in 1973.

pkbrandon wrote:
> Actually, what ended in 1973 was the Silver Certificate (the gold
> standard was ended in the '30's).

Nope. What ended in the '30s was the legality of owning gold in the US.
Gold was a controlled substance for 40 years -- and when FDR imposed the
rule (by executive order, not law), he did it on a Saturday when the
banks were closed, and had federal agents open and raid every safe
deposit box in the US, take the gold, and leave paper money in its place.

But foreign governments continued to be allowed to redeem dollars for
gold at the official price of $35/ounce until 1973, when Nixon "closed
the gold window".

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Harry Browne and Howard Ruff wrote
books about it that are.

On Dec 24, 12:50 pm, John David Galt <j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us>
wrote:
> >> pkbrandon wrote:
> >>> If Federal commitments like T-Bills and the FDIC are not honored, then
> >>> currency is not likely to have any value either; it's just another
> >>> Federal promise to pay.
> > John David Galt wrote:
> >> I'll bite: to pay what? If you mean gold, that promise ended in 1973.
> pkbrandon wrote:
> > Actually, what ended in 1973 was the Silver Certificate (the gold
> > standard was ended in the '30's).
>
> Nope. What ended in the '30s was the legality of owning gold in the US.
> Gold was a controlled substance for 40 years -- and when FDR imposed the
> rule (by executive order, not law), he did it on a Saturday when the
> banks were closed, and had federal agents open and raid every safe
> deposit box in the US, take the gold, and leave paper money in its place.
>
> But foreign governments continued to be allowed to redeem dollars for
> gold at the official price of $35/ounce until 1973, when Nixon "closed
> the gold window".
>
> Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Harry Browne and Howard Ruff wrote
> books about it that are.

"Ruff's Little Book of Big Fortunes in Gold & Silver: A Middle Class
License to Print Money"
lends all sorts of confidence, man.

On Dec 25, 10:11 am, pkbrandon <pkbra...@hickorytech.net> wrote:
> On Dec 24, 12:50 pm, John David Galt <j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > >> pkbrandon wrote:
> > >>> If Federal commitments like T-Bills and the FDIC are not honored, then
> > >>> currency is not likely to have any value either; it's just another
> > >>> Federal promise to pay.
> > > John David Galt wrote:
> > >> I'll bite: to pay what? If you mean gold, that promise ended in 1973.
> > pkbrandon wrote:
> > > Actually, what ended in 1973 was the Silver Certificate (the gold
> > > standard was ended in the '30's).
>
> > Nope. What ended in the '30s was the legality of owning gold in the US.
> > Gold was a controlled substance for 40 years -- and when FDR imposed the
> > rule (by executive order, not law), he did it on a Saturday when the
> > banks were closed, and had federal agents open and raid every safe
> > deposit box in the US, take the gold, and leave paper money in its place.
>
> > But foreign governments continued to be allowed to redeem dollars for
> > gold at the official price of $35/ounce until 1973, when Nixon "closed
> > the gold window".
>
> > Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Harry Browne and Howard Ruff wrote
> > books about it that are.
>
> "Ruff's Little Book of Big Fortunes in Gold & Silver: A Middle Class
> License to Print Money"
> lends all sorts of confidence, man.

This is all rather off topic, but ....
The gold *standard* ended with the foundation of the Federal Reserve
(anathema to John Galt ;-) in 1914.
The fact that the Treasury was willing under some circumstances to
exchange gold for foreign currency does not make it the standard for
the dollar.
The Britannica has a good article on it.

necromancer wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 23:37:30 GMT, dan <dan@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> Comments4u wrote:
>>> The line of companies willing to beg for money from Congress has just grown
>>> longer. Consumers Reports has requested a Congressional bail out hearing.
>>>
>> Very funny! Who will be next to ask for handouts? The Salvation Army?
>
> My bet would be on the catholic church - all those perverted preachers
> of theirs, you know....
>
> --
> "Here comes another con hiding behind a collar
> His only God is the all mighty Dollar
> He ain't no prophet, He ain't no healer
> He's just a two bit, goddamn money stealer!"
> --Suicidal Tendencies

3 cheers! :-)