NON US sanctioned authentic money -- The Liberty Dollar

Here audits of silver for the non fans of the idea
Audits

There not for an investment!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

If you like silver then why not just buy silver coins, that way you get something you like to collect as well

De Orc

 

A great point, double you pleasure!

 

That's exactly what led me back to coins after a long absence. Sometimes you can get the double-play effect. Silver and gold go up, and the numismatic value goes up.

 

I just recently got my Liberty Dollars (ordered 2). They are actually a very beautiful coin, they are made as proofs and are absolutely flawless. The designs on them are inspired by classic American coins.

I was a little bit skeptcal about it, but the coins are exactly as advertised, they are the same size as a Morgan dollar. I guess the dies aren't frequently used because the coins would probably grade as PF70 DCAM.

The spots are just dust on my scanner.

 

those are beatifull coins... but i am still stuck on the idea that its a scam, much like the FRN's.... Either way - if both are scame, why not use the most used currency. I get a $10 FRn, its worth $10 no matter where in the USA i go, i get a $10 Liberty Dollar, and its only worth the price of silver at most places, and at a few its worth $10.... its a pretty large gamble...

 

Those coins will never be worth less than it's bullion value. You pay almost 3x as much for a proof American Eagle which has the same exact silver content. A FRN for all intensitive purposes is worth nothing more than what the paper it's printed on. FRNs have no other use than to be fiat money. Silver on the other hand is a very useful metal, ti can be crafted into many things like jewelery for example.

Basically, yes this is a bullion coin, but this is how the majority of coins were in the 19th century. Coinage was valued based on it's gold or silver content of the time. A heavily worn silver coin back then would be worth nothing more than it's weight in silver, it would be actually worth less than face value of enough silver was worn off or ground off.

Even if Liberty Dollars don't catch on, they are still a great idea. These coins are designed to be inflation proof. With fractional banking, you will always have inflation. The inflation will continue until the system collapses. This is the very nature of the current banking system.

I heard about these coins about 5 years ago and I finally bought a couple. They really aren't any different than a silver round. It's not a scam, there is about $8 worth of silver in the coin. How much silver is in the rest of American coins? How much silver or gold is in a FRN?

The only real difference in the liberty dollar compared to a regular issue coin is that these coins do not bear a date or mintmark. I believe this was done to discourage hoarding of a specific coin and charging more for it based on it's numismatic value.

People have been collecting coins for millennia. The entire numismatic market for started to collect all the different types of coins that were made. If the mint stuck with a design and didn't change it, then there wouldn't be so many problems now. It is essential that only a certain amount of money is circulated per person. If there are too many coins in circulation, it could cause inflation. If there aren't enough, it will cause a deficit and eventually a depression.

Older coins, especially cents show much more wear than they would today because there was less in circulation and it was passed much more often. Today cents are barely used, many people just throw them away (donate) or toss them in a jar at home and never spend them because they really aren't worth much today.

For an economic system to work properly, the money in circulation should stay in circulation for the entire lifespan of the coin. The US Mint made a mistake by having different strikes, designs, dates and mintmarks on the coins. All of these things encourage hoarding. When people hoard currency, it does effect the economy. The director of the mint does not want a coin shortage so enough coins are minted to cover that aspect.

As soon as silver and gold were demonitized, inflation shot sky high. Gold prices shot up 10 fold when the govt seized it all in 1933. After then it was not legal to mint gold coins for legal tender and for a while it was illegal to hoard any amount of gold. The same thing was done for silver as well, people actually came into your house and paid you the spot prices for these precious metals. Silver was very plentiful in this country before that happened. The mint made 1964 silver coins until 1966 to try to cover the fact that people were hoarding silver. The 70's was a time where inflation was at it's worst in US history. This was because there was no longer anything to back it up.

Many people to this day believe that Fort Knox is where the gold is stored to back up our FRN. This is simply not true at all. There isn't any gold left at Fort Knox. The gold was actually laundered through foreign banks and it is now in the basement of the Federal Reserve building in NYC. Fort Knox was just a temporary storage tank for the gold. It was melted down and poured into ingots, then the majority was secretly moved to New York.

Over 90% of the world's gold is controlled by a very small group of people. This is why the price of gold today is so high.

 

The fact of the matter is that you're shelling out about $15 for $7.50 worth of silver and that VanNuthouse guy is making a profit. And there is a friggin web site stamped on the coin! T*A*C*K*Y

 

An interesting note though: VanNuthouse submitted the liberty dollar design to be used on the coin that became the sackagewa (sp)

 

No. This is UNTRUE, and has been UNTRUE since the time that commerce was conducted with Shekles, wieghts and scales.

What is true is that starting with Alexander Hamilton, the debt of the US has been funded by a varrying degree on good faith and credit of the Federal Government. In fact, this caused a firestorm with Andrew Jackson administration when this genious of economics threw a fickle economomy into complete chaos by disolving the 1st US Bank. And then other the next century a lot of time was wasted arguing if the government should attempt to price fix silver and gold at various prices.

Only an idiot with no education in economics would insist on a hard currency. First, no currency is truly hard unless you care to abandon uniform coinage all together.

Secondly, you'd need to toss out the entire FDIC and Banking insurance system. You have run on banks again. Wouldn't that be just so fun! Currently, the governement essentially guarantees the value of every single nickle in the economy because if there is a run on a bank, the government guarantees the money, even if it needs to print it. What are you going to do if you go onto silver? You'll need silver to back up ever savings account, and bank loan in the country. There is not enough silver in the world for this. And what a waste of silver, not to mention government funds! And lets all just pretend that sivler has "real" value! (sarc)

Silver has the same "real" value that a paper dollar does. It's worth exactly the amount of abstracted money that the delussional population thinks it does. Quoting the practical uses of silvers use not withstanding, silver is nearly worthless. When you can buy a huge metal and steel swords for about $6 wholesale, without the desire for silver for traditional reasons, its highly unlikely silver would be even worth more than cooper or quartz. The value of martials in a strickly economic sense, especially something like silver, is of minimal economic value. And frankly, if silver got too expensive, industry would just use something else until the demand let up and silver still had no value.

Ruben

 

<<As soon as silver and gold were demonitized, inflation shot sky high.>>

This is just not true and in addition to that, inflation has happened before getting off the gold standard as well.

If you want to collect sivler, by all means, by a silver mine.

Ruben

 

<<You pay almost 3x as much for a proof American Eagle which has the same exact silver content. >>

So don't buy them then. But ordinary silver blocks. But if your trying to imply that these fake coins will hold value more than the ASE's..... NO WAY. ASE's are a bueatiful government issue and will always be of interest to coin collectors. Those fake coins are never likely to have a value more than their bullion value. ASE will always be valued by coin collectors.

Ruben

 

Wow! Where to start with this sort of comment. I doubt I can say anything to change your mind, but for the benefit of others I have to respond, because this sort of thing tends to frequently pass unchallenged as the ultimate truth, which it is not.

First of all, an economy can operate just fine on a hard currency; some would say better. Prior to World War I, trade flourished substituting self-liquidating bills of exchange for fiat currency, cleared internationally through London. This system, which was dismantled after the war, worked so well that the volume of international trade from the years just prior to World War I was not exceeded again until the 1990s. Amazing but true. You can look it up.

Regarding the runs on the banks. This is only possible when banks are operated fraudulently, mismatching asset and liability duration. It has nothing to do with using silver and gold as currency. Regarding banking insurance, of course it is necessary in a fiat system, because the money has no intrinsic value. Just print what is needed, like Argentina. It isn't quite correct to say the government guarantees the value of money. They guarantee to replace the face amount. In actuality, each newly printed dollar decreases the value of all dollars that preceed it by a small amount. So FDIC insurance doesn't prevent loss, it socializes the loss among everyone. Not quite the same thing as you suggested.

Regarding the need to back every loan with silver, this is quite easy to accomplish. Economist Antal Fekete has explained how such a system operates on a very small base of gold and silver to support a very large amount of economic activity. I think what you meant to say is that such a system no longer operates, not that it can't operate. Since banks operated successfully for hundreds of years under hard currency systems, and systemic crises tended only to occur when paper was substituted as money, it is foolish to say such a system is impossible. It's already been done.

I tend to agree with you that someone with an "education in economics" probably will insist that hard money systems don't work. That's the same position I started from, but fortunately managed to overcome. However, I disagree that those people believing in hard money are idiots. The point is that since this sort of thing isn't taught anymore, or is taught with an anti-gold/silver agenda, the typical economics student couldn't be expected to understand it. Their loss. The principles behind the operation of a hard currency system are almost becoming lost knowledge. Too bad.

And just to show that there are more ideas under the sun than people commonly think about, the present central bank fiat currency system and the hard money gold and/or silver system are only two of the three possible ways to operate a currency system [and no, barter isn't the third]. That will give you something to research, but is way too much to post here. Don't be so sure that you know all the answers. Every time I believe that, I find out I'm wrong and that the field of economics contains more amazing concepts than most people imagine.

When someone tells you something is impossible in economics, it usually means they stand to profit from the alternative they present as the only way things could possibly be. But in ecnomics, perhaps more than most other fields, it pays to be skeptical of such assertions and dig a little deeper.

 

I think I'll start my own hard currency and base it on agricultural commodities.

 

...and dont forget the 800 number

 

<<Prior to World War I, trade flourished substituting self-liquidating bills of exchange for fiat currency, cleared internationally through London. This system, which was dismantled after the war, worked so well that the volume of international trade from the years just prior to World War I was not exceeded again until the 1990s. Amazing but true. You can look it up.>>

Actually, this is just not true. None of the countries involved had enough silver or gold to exchange all their currency. The whole concept of hard currency, then as now, was a fraud. You can look it up.

Taking the paper off the gold standard simply made legal what was for the most part already the case and ended the pretense of pretending to have a hard currency.

Of course, today we use plastic, and very little actual "money" is exhanging hands compared to the amounts of money that is in circulation.

Ruben

 

This paragraph borders on by intentional fraud. But just to be clear on this, runs on banks were common prior to the FDIC system and going off the gold standard, and inevitable. Banks can never operate by having all the deposits sitting in the vault. You can call that being "irrespossible" but then you'd be misrepresenting the facts.

As for the issue of if there is enough silve and gold to cover all the currency, look it up again. There is currently almost 10 TRILLION dollars in the M3 money supply as of a few months ago http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h6/current/ much of which never sees the light of day are physicial currency. I'm sorry, but there is not enough silver or gold to represent even the US economy in silver or gold, let alone the world economy.

Whats really amazing is that hard currency remained a viable concept as long as it did. Its ending was inevitable.

Ruben

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply

 

Mrbrklyn,

Your reply was expected. This is what most people think who believe that a hard money system requires gold and silver equal to the amount of currency in circulation, or else a run on the bank is inevitable. That is the ultra-extreme fringe goldbug view of the world where banks are viewed as precious metals warehouses, but doesn't reflect how the world banking system operated prior to World War I. It's obvious that you haven't looked into this [and won't I'm sure], didn't examine trade statistics, and don't understand banking as practiced prior to the creation of the Federal Reserve, but it wasn't my intention to convince you. I only wanted to warn any other readers that this might be the conventional view of economic history, but is wrong. It is very convenient for the central banks of the world to permit this misinformation to continue to circulate, since it's convenient to have people believe that the way things are is the only way they could possibly be. It just doesn't happen to be true. Amazingly, what you consider impossible provided the basis for commerce for over 400 years.

Your response reminds me of an old economics joke. After one economist demonstrates to another that something contrary to current economic thinking is apparently true, the second replies, "That might work in practice, but it will never work in theory."

Anyway, that's the end of this discussion for me. I know better than to try to make people see the difference between their opinions and facts. Everyone is free to believe what they want with whatever degree of confidence makes them happy.

 

This is far from what I said, but it completely obscures the facts. Prior to the FDIC which inevitably leads to abandoning a gold standard, then banks were, as a fact, often run on, and as a fact, the banking system did in fact collapse in the depression, and the current system has hummed along for 70 years now without a bank run or a banking collapse, without "ruinous" inflation which will cause a "collapse" due to that inflation. And its managed to do this during both good economy and bad ones.

Ruben

 

http://www.fdic.gov/bank/historical/bank/