A reader (“D.”) posed the following comments and questions:
“I’ve been ‘thinking’ and since I’ve watched the 3-part series of ‘Money as Debt,’ I’m now asking the question: Labor is what really gives “money” its value and I understand that all currencies are fiat or unbacked. Any clue or idea on how to measure the value of different types of labor performed in terms of gold and silver which I understand is the true money and of course what the Illuminati only deal in.”
I don’t know what form of currency the Illuminati prefer, but I do know that 99% of the American people don’t understand anything more about money than how to count it. More, I know that the concept of money is far more complex, mysterious and influential than mere counting might suggest.
For example, I disagree with your premise that “Labor is what really gives ‘money’ its value.”
If labor is all it takes to give money value, then there’s no reason why we can’t use fiat currency as money and no reason to prefer gold. We can measure the value of our “labor” in terms of corn cobs, pebbles, gold or fiat currency.
For example, Confederate dollars once provided a “measure” of the value of Southerners’ labor. We can study history and learn how many Confederate dollars were once paid for an hour of someone’s labor in the Confederacy. However, although some of those Confederate paper dollars are still around, they no longer store the value of the labor from the 1860s. These Confederate dollars may still measure the value of labor, but they no longer store the value of labor. They are no longer “money” because they are no longer a means to “store” the value of the labor in the 1860s.
Measuring the immediate value of anything from ice cream to labor is not enough to qualify as “money”. Money is not merely a measure of value—it’s also a store of value.
So long as our currency is a store of value, I can not only work today, be paid and spend my earnings, I can save my earnings so as to spend the value of today’s labor at some time in the future. To the extent that the $100 I save today can be spent, say, 50 years from now and still provide me with $100 in purchasing power, the currency I used to save the value of my labor can be deemed to be “money”.
But if the currency I’m paid in today is subject to inflation/devaluation, by the time 50 years rolls by, my $100 in savings may only purchase $5 in goods and services—or maybe nothing at all. A currency that doesn’t store value does not rise to the level of “money”.
Inflation losses are typically seen in fiat currencies like the US dollar/Federal Reserve Note (FRN).
• If I couldn’t buy “things” with gold, it would have no value. So the price of gold isn’t simply about the productivity of labor but also about the cost of living, about the price of consuming the necessities of life.
How much of any given product or necessity can I buy with gold? The quantity of any good or service paid for with gold is based on agreement.
The utility of gold is that, for the past 5,000 years, most of the world has agreed that gold has some value. We might quibble over whether gold should be priced at $1,300/ounce or $5,000/ounce, but no one believes or expects that gold will ever become worthless in this life. Based on gold’s 5,000-year track record, we can presume that gold will continue to have some value, no matter what, for however many years or millennia remain. Gold was, is, and will be “money” as long as there are people who agree that gold is “valuable”.
Strangely, almost inexplicably, the world has agreed that gold is “money” for 5,000 years. No man-made financial creation has a comparable track record. Gold has been money for about 50 times as long as Federal Reserve Notes. 100 times longer than the current Chinese renminbi. 500 times longer than euros. Odds are, gold will still be money long after all of those fiat currencies (and the governments that espouse them) are forgotten.
We can’t say the same about fiat currencies. You don’t need the gift of prophecy to predict that one day the perceived “value” of any fiat currency will disintegrate into nothingness.
Given that the average life-expectancy of the world’s 250 former fiat currencies has been only about 40 to 50 years, we can presume that all of the world’s current fiat currencies (including US dollars) will self-destruct within the next ten years—and might self-destruct within the next ten months.
The short life-expectancies for fiat currencies implies that if you believe you’re living in or near a time when your nation’s fiat currency is about to be dramatically devalued in a “reset” or rendered totally worthless in a monetary collapse, gold is the one “money” that will continue to retain value in the aftermath of such reset or collapse. While no one can tell you what the price of gold will be next month or next year, no one will even suggest that gold might cease to be a store of value in our lifetimes. You can’t say the same about any fiat currency.
If you have any wealth and you want to store it for some number of years into the future, gold is the most reliable means to do so.
• Your questions continued:
“I understand in the US Constitution which is supposed to be the supreme law of this land and is what we are fighting for, that only gold and silver is to be real money.”
Your understanding is roughly correct, but (like my own) incomplete.
Article 1 Section 10 Clause 1 (Article 1.10.1) of the Constitution of the United States declares in part that,
“No State shall make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a tender in payment of Debts.”
Note that the only kind of American “States” that existed when the Constitution was ratified by the American people in A.D. 1788 were the thirteen member-States of the perpetual Union that had been created by the Articles of Confederation in A.D. 1781. The Articles of Confederation expressly named that perpetual Union to be, “The United States of America”—not “United States of America”; not “United States”.
Thus, when the later Constitution (A.D. 1788) included the Article 1.10.1 mandate for gold and silver coin, that mandate only applied to member States of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”.
“The United States of America” consists only of the (now 50) States of the Union. However, the Constitution of the United States (A.D. 1788) created two new kinds of jurisdiction unknown to The United States of America: 1) territories, and 2) the federal “district” that we now call Washington DC. This raises the strange possibility that, technically speaking, our territories and Washington DC are in the “United States” but not in “The United States of America”.
If you’ll reread Article 1.10.1 (“No State shall . . . .”), you’ll see that that Article applies to only States of the Union. It does not apply to the territories of the “United States” or to Washington DC.
The Founders failed to mandate that gold and/or silver be the only lawful money for not only the States of the Union, but also for the territories and Washington DC. That oversight laid the foundation for most of the financial and political trouble we see in this country today.
The Founders failed to anticipate the enormous threat to the rights and freedoms of people of the States of the Union posed by territories and Article 4 Section 3 Clause 2 (Article 4.3.2) of the Constitution which declares in part,
“The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needed Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; . . . .”
That text might not sound like much, but it means that under Article 4.3.2 Congress has “Power to make all needed Rules and Regulations respecting the Territor[ies].” That means Congress has unlimited legislative jurisdiction within the territories of the United States. Within the territories Congress isn’t even limited by the Constitution. Within the territories, Congress is the sovereign and all inhabitants are subjects. Congress can enact any legislation is likes, no matter how crazy, within the territories. Legislation that would seem despotic and unconstitutional within the States of the Union, would be completely constitutional within the “territories of the United States”.
For example, within the territories, Congress can even legalize the use of fiat currencies (like the US dollar) that is forbidden by Article 1.10.1 as unconstitutional within the States of the Union. Depending on whether your venue is within a territory or within a State of the Union, your use of fiat currency could be either constitutional (within the territory) or unconstitutional within the State of the Union.
Under Article 4.3.2, Congress could even enact a direct income tax on the inhabitants of the territories despite the fact that such direct tax was expressly restricted or forbidden within the States of the Union by Articles 1.2.3, 1.8.1 and 1.9.4. This duality might explain why, according to Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916); and Brushaber v. Union Pac. R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916) the Sixteenth Amendment reportedly, “conferred no new power of taxation” on Congress. Under Article 4.3.2, Congress always had the power of unlimited taxation within the territories. If that analysis were true, it would imply that those of you who reside in, or are presumed to reside in, a territory are constitutionally obligated to pay income taxes while those of you who reside within a State of the Union may have no constitutional obligation to pay income taxes.
Under Article 4.3.2, Congress has unlimited power within the territories. Within those territories, Congress is the sovereign.
Under Article 1, Congress has only limited powers within the States of the Union. Within those States, We the People are the sovereigns.
Interestingly, if Congress could pass laws or create circumstances that supported the legal presumption that the American people were living in territories rather than States of the Union, Congress could have unlimited powers over the entire United States.
Where to you think you reside today? In a venue where Congress has limited powers? Or in a venue where Congress has unlimited powers? The answer to those questions may suggest whether you’re residing (or presumed by the courts to reside) within a State of the Union or in a territory of the United States.
• I strongly suspect that the national government created circumstances to support the legal presumption that we’re living in territories rather than States of the Union. How? By removing gold coin from domestic circulation in A.D. 1933 and later removing silver from domestic circulation between A.D. 1964 and 1968.
Even though gold and silver coins haven’t been in domestic circulation since at least A.D. 1968 (now, 46 years), Article 1.10.1 has never been repealed. Doesn’t that strike you as odd? Once the government removed gold and silver coin, why didn’t we amend the Constitution to legalize the use of fiat dollars?
To this day, Article 1.10.1 still mandates that the governments of the States of the Union can’t “make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in payment of Debts”. I believe that mandate not only means that the State governments can’t declare some other fiat currency to be a “legal tender”—it also means that the governments of the States of the Union can’t impose taxes, collect fines or fees or even pay their employees except with a gold- or silver-based money.
If so, it follows that once the national government removed gold and silver coin from domestic circulation, the governments of the States of the Union became insolvent and unable to function. Without gold or silver coin in circulation, the governments can’t collect taxes or pay its bills. The States of the Union (especially, the people of those States of the Union) are still here, but the governments of the States of Union have been rendered non-functional and abandoned by the loss of gold and silver coin.
I believe that in the midst of the apparent “emergency” posed by the loss of constitutional governments of the States of the Union, the national government (and especially Congress) passed emergency legislation to presume the States of the Union to be fictional “territories” wherein the people and their new governmental administrations could lawfully use fiat currencies like Federal Reserve Notes without violating Article 1.10.1 the Constitution.
Yes, yes, I know this hypothesis seems fantastic to most people. Nevertheless, bear with me and I’ll demonstrate some of the supporting logic.
• Under Article 1.10.1 of the Constitution, Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) or other forms of fiat currency are unconstitutional within the States of the Union. However, under Article 4.3.2, those same fiat currencies are absolutely constitutional within a territory and/or Washington DC. So, when we ask if FRNs are “constitutional,” the answer depends on the venue we’re talking about. In the territories, FRNs are constitutional. Within the States of the Union, they’re not.
That duality creates an extraordinary dilemma. Insofar as we use FRNs (fiat dollars) to make our daily purchases, pay our bills and state taxes, one of two things must be true. Either,
1) If we’re buying or selling within a State of the Union, our use of FRNs (fiat currency) is unconstitutional under Article 1.10.1; or,
2) Our use of FRNs is constitutional, if we are—or if we’re at least presumed to be—selling or making purchases within a territory or Washington DC under Article 4.3.2.
Q.: Why might that bizarre dilemma be important?
A.: If I’m within the borders of a State of the Union (like “The State of Texas”)—then, under Article 1 of the Constitution, Congress has only limited powers over me and that State of the Union. But if I’m in (or am presumed to be in) a territory or Washington DC, Congress operates under Article 4.3.2 of the Constitution which gives Congress unlimited powers over the territories and Washington DC and all those who are presumed to inhabit that “territory”.
So let’s suppose I’m down here on “Texas” using FRNs to purchase groceries or pay my traffic tickets and sales taxes. Does the law still recognize “Texas” as a State of the Union (where my use of FRNs is unconstitutional under Article 1.10.1)? Or, has my use of FRNs allowed government to presume that I’m acting constitutionally but within the fictional jurisdiction of some sort of territory under Article 4.3.2?
If I can prove that I’m acting within the venue of a State of the Union, the federal government has very little power over me. However, if my use of FRNs creates the presumption that I’m acting within a territory,congressional power over me may be unlimited.
Again, I know who improbable this notion seems to most people. Still, I strongly suspect that my mere use of a fiat currency may be deemed sufficient evidence for the courts to presume that I’ve voluntarily entered into a “territory” and therefore become subject to the unlimited jurisdiction of Congress. If my suspicions are correct, the kind of “money” that you or I use can determine our standing and how many rights we have.
Believe me, I know how nutty this analysis sounds. But if you think I’m crazy, go back to reconsider the dilemma posed by Article 1.10.1. Under that Article, use of fiat currencies like FRNs is unconstitutional—but only within the States of the Union. Since we haven’t had gold or silver-backed currency in circulation in this country since A.D. 1968, that implies that either:
1) Within the States of the Union, we act unconstitutionally every time we pay traffic tickets, fees or taxes with FRNs; or,
2) If paying our traffic tickets etc. with FRNs (rather than gold and silver) is constitutional, then we must be presumed to do so within the jurisdiction of a territory (under Article 4.3.2) rather than the jurisdiction of a State of the Union.
Both possibilities seem unbelievable. I know.
But unless someone can offer a third possibility that I can’t yet see or even imagine, only one of those unbelievable possibilities must be true when I buy or sell with FRNs.
So which possibility seems more likely? That we violate the Constitution every time we pay for anything with fiat dollars within the venue of a State of the Union? Or that the billions of currency transactions that Americans make each day with fiat dollars are seemingly “constitutional” because the courts presume us to be acting within the venue of a territory?
• I can’t prove whichever of those two possibilities is true, but after fifteen years of considering the dilemma, I’m convinced that the “territorial” explanation is roughly correct.
If I’m right, it appears that whenever I use FRNs without objection or disclaimer to discharge my debts, that use can create the legal presumption that (under Article 4.3.2 of the Constitution) I am a subject and Congress has unlimited jurisdiction over me. On the other hand, if I chose to use gold and silver, that use may create the presumption that (under Article 1.10.1 of the Constitution), I’m within a State of the Union and Congress has only limited jurisdiction over me. (I suspect that it’s even possible that I might be able to use FRNs within a State of the Union, provided that my use is accompanied by an express objection or disclaimer which would rebut the presumption that I must be transacting within a territory.)
• We’re not in Kansas, anymore, are we, Dorothy?
I know that most people will find my previous analysis to be confusing, fantastic, and even preposterous. I know that some people who’ve read this article to this point, will probably think I’m a nut. But I and a handful of others have explored that hypothesis for most of 20 years. We’re strongly convinced that our seemingly impossible conclusions are roughly correct. Therefore, I present that hypothesis here to illustrate that the use of fiat dollars can have far-reaching political consequences that not one man in 1,000 has even imagined. Whether you are presumed to be free or slave might be determined by the kind of currency you use.
There’s so much more to “money” than mere counting. Those of you who are determined to really study and learn “money” had best be prepared to face some mind-boggling possibilities and conclusions.
If my previous hypothesis seems too bizarre to be possible, please recall that Baron Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744 -1812), godfather of the Rothschild Banking Cartel of Europe, once observed that,
“Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes the laws.”
It’s possible that Baron Rothschild merely meant that if he controlled the money, he could bribe whoever he needed to bribe to get whatever he wanted. But I suspect that Rothschild’s meaning went deeper. I’m convinced that Rothschild saw and understood the incredible political power that’s inherent in any currency to determine a man’s political standing and rights. That’s why Rothschild didn’t care who made the laws. He knew that the unseen power of money trumps the apparent power of legislation.
So far as I know, Rothschild never explained his understanding of money to the public. But if he was right to prefer the control of money to control of laws, there’s something about the nature of money that’s mysterious and far more powerful than 99.9% of the people even imagine. I can’t prove it, but I believe that the hypothesis I’ve advanced in this article parallels some of Rothschild’s understanding of money.
We can debate whether that hypothesis is true or false. But given Baron Rothschild’s mysterious preference for controlling money and disdain for legislation, that hypothesis is at least plausible.
Again, there’s much more to “money” than mere counting.
[Part II, to follow.]