do you think the FED will do QE3 sometime this year?

This is a big part of my motivation for speaking out for ownership of precious metals. I don't want to see people suffer, and I don't want them coming to me for help when they could have helped themselves, or worse to attempt to take by force. There's really no way to avoid this situation if it comes down to it, but at least we can try to get as many people as possible in a position where they won't have to resort to such things.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Just something for everyone to think about though. Do you really think the elite who are running up these debts will allow you to be self sufficient? What happened to those who tried to plan ahead during the depression and store gold? With one stroke of the pen, the government simply took it away from them at a price they set. With the government saying they can now take real property for any reason whatsoever, (including giving it to a buddy), and now trying to force everyone in the country to purchase something they may not want, why exactly do you think it would not be a felony to NOT sell all PM to the government at a government set price if the SHTF? If its a felony to own PM, what good even hiding it will do?

I am just saying if a scenario in which many fear happens, I do not see protection in PM.

The main use I see for PM is as a hedge versus inflation, and thats about it. For PM bugs, the outcome which will best prove your intelligence in investing in PM will be a high inflation environment like the late 70's. Anything worst and I fear it may not help at all.

Chris

 

Don't count on that because the max tax rate will be 100% it's called Communism when everything you do and work for all goes to the "party" "state" or ruling government. That's not economic ruin for them unless everyone stops working completely. They will just collect everything they can at that point and still spend spend spend.

 

Except that there is no logic to this conclusion. People were not storing gold in those days because the defined price of gold/ounce was $20. Period. It did not go up, it did not go down. Why would people horde something that never changed in price? Furthermore, the government did not end silver ownership. Anyone with a $20 gold piece could get 20 silver dollars instead and they could do that even with a FRN. This conversion lasted for decades.

The mistake in your logic is that you are taking current conditions where we are on the last stages of fiat currency and attributing to them to the time when people were beginning to be forced onto said currency off sound lawful money.

 

I don't plan on selling much, if any silver anyway. I'm preparing for when I may need an alternative to a monetary system that might require Orwellian levels of social participation. If PM's becomes illegal then most likely gun confiscation will also be in the scenario in which case I won't be participating in the circus. I'll be out of dodge in a Dodge somewhere. Otherwise if the price goes way up without hyperinflation, and I still have the freedoms I have today I might sell a little, or if I have something I need to pay for or identify a more promising asset. A hedge against inflation is secondary for me, rather just an added bonus. It's about self sufficiency first and foremost, and the maximum odds of ensuring my freedom. Precious metals are an important component of that for me, which is wealth preservation in any circumstance, but that doesn't cover the other key components such as protection, essentials, gear, and most importantly knowledge.

 

The situation in Europe and how it is affected by Fed policy will play a major role in the QE decision.
Figure out if a stronger Euro or Dollar is needed there and which way commodity prices need to go.
The US can't directly bail out Europe, but its monetary policy is important.

 

I don't think that's likely in the US.

 

Sorry, but you missed the point entirely.

My point was its an historical precedent that this government can at any time make it illegal to own PM and can take it from you any time they wish, at whatever price they wish. I am simply saying if the government has already PROVEN they can take you PM at their whim, and make trading it a federal felony, how much "safety" can there be in owning it?

 

Thank-you for the clarification because I too missed the point. Having jogged my memory and recalling recent eminent domain events well illustrates how the government violates our rights and what may well happen with ALL PMs. But I also have to defend Fatima's terrific insight. I love what she brings to the discussion.

 

So if the President signed an executive order to re-authorize the ownership of slaves it could do this as well? I don't think so. Again this sort of reasoning fails because it assumes that changes to society, economics, and subsequent legal precedents do not exist.

If Obama tried such a thing these days, at best he would end up in the Supreme Ct. as he is now, in defending the Constitutionality of Obamacare.

 

Well, we passed Constitutional Amendments banning slavery, so that is a red herring argument. Roosevelt's impoundment was challenged in court and upheld, so again your comparison to this and the health care case is also a red herring, because the health care law has been ruled unconstitutional in lower courts, so now the Supreme Court is in the process of deciding.

Basically both of your comparisons fail. The last ruling on Roosevelts impoundment was that it is Constitutional, so that is the law of the land. Also, since there is historical court precedence, overturning that ruling will be harder. Yes, I am saying that with a stroke of a pen the president could say all gold has to be turned into the US for a price of say $400 an ounce. Silver might be priced at $8. The price would not really matter, though, right? All they would be doing would be printing more paper to get your gold. Do I like this at all? Hells no, but I am simply saying this is the law of this country, that the government has this power already.

As for "changes in society", I think most here would agree that the government has gotten more powerful over the last 80 years, so I do not see that changing the argument either.

 

Your argument still fails.

In 1896 the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson that state sponsored racial segregation was legal. i.e. "Separate but Equal" was fine in the eyes of the law and the Constitution. In 1954, the Supreme Court overturned this ruling by declaring that "Separate but Equal" was not legal in the famous case Brown vs The Board of Education. Just because a state created segregated schools in the 1890s which was upheld in the court then doesn't mean it can't do so now.

So your reasoning fails because, as I originally said, you claim that just because FDR did it in 1933 and it was upheld in court then, that it would be possible now. This is a logical fallicy because it simply ignores, subsequent precedent, changes to society and economics.

 

Ok, name one case then. Name one case that you believe has forbidden the government from impounding PM like it did in 1933.

 

President Bush issued an Executive order in 2006 which limited the Federal government's ability to seize private property. There have been tens of thousands of court cases since the 1930s. You are making a legal argument that because something was allowed in 1933, it would be allowed now. What you have failed to do is establish that some succeeding precedent, executive order, etc etc etc, had change what can happen today. Therefore it's inaccurate to make the bold statement that it can happen again. You don't know this.

I've said before to take care in applying past examples to present day conditions when it comes to currency, money and so forth is folly without understanding fully all the factors that affected the decision at the time vs now.

 

The executive order was not renewed. I am stating that its court approved, acceptable law today for the president to impound PM at his wish. Please, (again), cite a court ruling that would challenge this. You mention modern day, well just a few years ago the SC ruled that not only can any government take property for public use, but now they can take property to give to another private user. Basically Fatima if someone in your town wants to build a gas station where your house sits, your town legally can take it from you, (with FMV compensation), and give it to someone else. Americans have absolutely no right to any property any longer, it is all at the pleasure of the government. I would say this has been the "succeeding precendent" in the past 80 years. I think a court would think it quaint if someone thougth they could challenge something as easy to decide as a PM confiscation.

Again, if you have ANY court rulings limiting governments right to confiscate property from the past 80 years, making such confiscation now illegal, I would love to hear it. You are the one who says you report "facts". Please name the case which you believe overrides the government's authority. Btw, the case I cite on rulings of condemnations is Kelo vs City of New London. I think it is the most current eminent domain case that has been decided by the SC. Please read that and tell me how you think the government is more restricted now than in 1933.

Edit: BTW, Bush' order was pretty much meaningless anyway since it only applied to Fed agencies, and almost all meinent domain action is done by state and local governments, who are not subject to the executive order.

 

OK using your own case, Kelo vs the City of New London and the fact that you now wish to consider state & local goverments. I cite Wikipedia on this case:

[highlight]...By July 2007, 42 states had enacted some type of reform legislation in response to the Kelo decision. Of those 42 states, 21 enacted laws that severely inhibited the takings allowed by the Kelo decision.[/highlight]

The case you cite, the one you used as an example, proved what I said exactly about the change in society, legal precedent, and economics. The Kelo taking is now illegal in those states and possibly more by now since that was 5 years ago. Anyone who simply "assumed" that because it could happen in 2005 means it could happen now, is simply wrong. Don't expect me to prove your examples for you as you apparently didn't even bother to look into the subsequent reaction to that "precedent". (even favorable precedents can cause change).

For anyone to state that because FDR could take gold in 1933, then simply ignore close to 80 years events and conclude that it can as easily happen now, is offering up a misguided opinion. I will point out that in comparison Kelo and subsequent change happed only a small amount of time ago.

 

No one knows more than Fatima. My mistake.

I was simply pointing out the Supreme Court allows MORE than a simple PM confiscation nowadays. State reactions do not matter, since only the SC would stop a president from doing this.

However, I am wrong because Fatima wills it. End of discussion.

 

The point is what you said.

You said that because FDR seized gold in 1933, then government can do this now and will at the behests of the elites don't like it. Therefore you state it was foolish to look to PM for wealth protection. I disagree and pointed out there is no logic to this conclusion. Nothing more nothing less. if you now want us to think that you have been victimized, it wasn't at my hands. It was your own words that did it.

If one says, on a gold and silver bullion forum, that it's basically foolish to use PM for wealth preservation and then can't defend it. I'd say they shouldn't be expecting rainbows, unicorns and rose pedals falling at your feet for such a demonstration.

 

I don't believe we will see outright confiscation in the USA. I also think Ron Paul's tussels with Bernanke have been sufficiently publicized that Congress won't have the spine to try and follow the example currently being set by Vietnam and Turkey.

 

Interesting articles, thanks for posting. I view these slightly differently. Both countries are in dire financial positions due to this extraordinary demand for gold by their populations. The central banks are simply viewing this as a short term problem of people panicing, but its causing inflation for everyone. Its much akin to the problem in the US to our demand for oil, our insatiable thirst for oil is pressuring the dollar as oil increases.

I guess at least in the case of Vietnam I am not sure I would do differently if presented with the same facts, and I was in power there. I am sure many disagree, but it sure looks like the gold bugs are causing inflation in that country. As for Turkey, I think its more a shortage of capital prohibiting banks from making loans to help the economy grow.