The Golden Rule

The Golden Rule is basically, the one who owns the gold makes the rules which might explain why two moron members of Congress will be holding hearings on the gold industry. Henry Waxman and Anthony Weiner (an appropriate name if ever there was one) want companies that sell gold to disclose what the resale value of the gold would be.

The government does not like individuals owning gold. In the 1930s the president signed an Executive Order making it illegal to posses gold after a certain date**. People foolishly turned their gold into the government and they lost a fortune in value. A person who owned 100 ounces of gold back then would have about $2,500 in gold which would be worth about $120,000 today. People were robbed of their future wealth and their possessions by the government.

Now Weiner and Waxman are concerned about the new gold rush. But is their concern for those who are buying the gold and how they might get ripped off or is it for the people who act as spokespersons for the gold companies? There is a fairly long list of conservatives who pitch gold for various companies. Waxman and Weiner do not like that and while they might feign indignation because they are worried the ignorant public is being duped, they really appear to be going after the conservatives who make money hawking ads for gold.

These two morons are also concerned that the people who are selling gold are fear mongers stirring up the public and making the rubes believe that things are worse than they really are. The real problem is that things are worse than they are being portrayed. Gold is the only real hedge against inflation and we will have inflation. The government cannot keep printing money without causing inflation.

Gold is the hedge against that inflation and was one of the precious metals that backed our currency until the government decided not to have our money backed any longer. So it makes sense that people would want to buy it.

So while these two morons ignore the real problems and focus on gold and the people selling it, it might be a good idea if people did what they thought was prudent and ignored these bumbling morons.

If you decide to buy gold just keep in mind that the government will illegally confiscate it if it decides to and if you are not smart enough to keep them from knowing that you have it.

**To make this clear the government made it illegal to own more than $100 worth of gold. Later that was tightened by certain licensing restrictions. People could not move their gold because of the restrictions. History

Cave Canem!
Big Dog

Gunline

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

20 Responses to “The Golden Rule”

  1. Blake says:

    The real reason is to deny FOX news and the Glenn Beck show a revenue stream, nothing more than this- these companies are in business to make money, and if people who are thinking of investing in gold do not do their homework, some may get charged more than others- this is how business is done- some companies are good, some less so- and if you do not understand this, you might just be a progressive, who thinks the game should perpetually be rigged in their favor.

  2. The government can try to confiscate it. Back in 1933, Americans had a naive faith in the benevolence and efficacy of Washington. Basically, it hadn’t yet raped anyone’s sister or daughter. So we gave it too much leeway…which is one of the reasons we’re where we are today.

    No longer, BD. A confiscation order would be massively ignored — and resisted, in those cases where Washington actually dispatched agents to enforce it, with guns. And then our political class would see, in glorious Technicolor, exactly how much citizen respect remains to it.

  3. Darrel says:

    Bigd: “In the 1930s the president signed an Executive Order making it illegal to posses gold after a certain date.”>>

    DAR
    You wouldn’t happen to have a reference on that one thar would ya?

    LOL

    • Big Dog says:

      Executive Order 6102

    • Darrel says:

      DAR
      Thanks for the reference Bigd.

      D.
      —————
      Wiki: “Order 6102 specifically exempted “customary use in industry, profession or art”–a provision that covered artists, jewelers, dentists, and sign makers among others. The order further permitted any person to own up to $100 in gold coins ($1677 if adjusted for inflation as of 2010; a face value equivalent to 5 troy ounces (160 g) of Gold valued at about $6200 as of 2010)…

      The regulations prescribed within Executive Order 6102 were modified by Executive Order 6111 of April 20, 1933, both of which were ultimately revoked and superseded…

      There was only one prosecution under the order, and in that case the order was ruled invalid by federal judge…”

      Link[/a>

      Bigd’s claim: “In the 1930s the president signed an Executive Order making it illegal to posses gold after a certain date.”

      Is therefore refuted.

      • Big Dog says:

        It is not refuted. The government allowed small quantities and it was all eventually overturned but people turned in a lot of gold before it was. The lawsuit was dismissed on a technicality that involved who signed the order, not the validity of the order. If you are not allowed to own all you want and the government can set the price you will be paid when you are forced to turn it in then you are not free.

        A huge fine for not turning in all but a small portion is still a fine and it infringes upon the rights of people. People could not own what they wanted or keep what they had therefore it was illegal to own it.

      • Darrel says:

        Again Bigd pretends he can’t understand plain grade school English. Or is he pretending?

        Bigd: “The government allowed small quantities…”>>

        DAR
        Then it’s not true that:

        “In the 1930s the president signed an Executive Order making it illegal to posses gold after a certain date.”

        Bigd: “it was all eventually overturned”>>

        DAR
        Eventually? There was only one attempted prosecution and it flopped.

        Bigd: “if you are not allowed to own all you want”>>

        DAR
        You didn’t say anything about “owning all you want.” You said:

        “…illegal to posses gold after a certain date.”

        That’s false. Try being honest. Ogre says it’s important to be honest. I think he’s right about that.

        Bigd: “People could not own what they wanted or keep what they had therefore it was illegal to own it.”>>

        DAR
        No, that doesn’t follow. Let’s count the ways your latest variation is false:

        1) It didn’t effect those having “gold” because they were artists, jewelers, dentists, and sign makers etc.

        2) It wasn’t illegal to own gold, *as you said* even up to $6,200 in today’s dollars. Only in excess of that, and it was not on even a single occasion effectively enforced. And they only tried once.

        Apparently this was an attempt to keep people from hoarding gold and using it as currency, probably for the purposes of avoiding taxes. This is still illegal btw and probably what most bothers you: paying your fair share. It always comes back to the greed doesn’t it?

        What is this fetish the right has with guns and shiny metals? Childish.

        D.
        —————
        You do realize there isn’t enough gold in the world to back up the wealth of even the US? Right? You do realize that?

  4. Mr. Ogre says:

    I think Blake and Francis have it right (Hi, Francis!). This move is about money, and trying to reduce funding and income for Fox News, an opponent of Democrats who attempt to hide things.

    At the same time, making gold possession illegal would just make the price of gold go up even MORE because it could be owned by everyone else on the planet legally. Yes, government would go out to take gold where they could, but government also outlawed marijuana, and how did that work out for them?

  5. Big Dog says:

    It was illegal to own gold. You can extend that sentence to it was illegal to own gold in excess of but it was illegal.

    I understand the English language as well or better than you.

    It was not about greed. People were worried about the inflation caused by the poor policies of the president (sound familiar).

    As for me not paying my fair share, get real. I pay more than my fair share.

    But now that you brought it up, who defines a fair share? You, Adam, others. Who defines it and what about those who get more in benefits than they pay in? Are they abusing the system because they did not pay their fair share?

    The bottom line is that it is MY money and I have a say in how it is spent. Those who pay NO taxes should not have that say.

    As far as greed, look no further than those in Congress. And when this gold confiscation was done it was valued at one price and then when it was taken it was valued at a higher price to artificially make things better.

    As far as it goes, there will be no further confiscations. Those of us who like our shiny metals know how to protect them with the guns you so despise.

    And you do realize there is not enough wealth in the US to pay our debt, right.

    Our money was backed with two precious metals and there are more out there. The loss of the gold standard and the implementation of the Fed caused the problems we have with our monetary system.

  6. Big Dog says:

    Ogre said it was important to be honest? What would you know about honesty?

    • Darrel says:

      BD; “What would you know about honesty?”>>

      DAR
      This thread, as with hundreds of other examples shown on this site over the years is just another testament to your inability, or lack of desire, to be honest with language.

      If you had claimed:

      “In the 1930s the president signed an Executive Order making it illegal to posses marijuana after a certain date.”

      And when checking your very own source we found that no,

      a) a person could own 5 ounces of MJ,

      b) HUGE swathes of categories were allowed in “customary use in industry, profession or art”

      c) and there was only a single attempt at enforcement when someone went over that limit and it failed…

      An honest person would admit their claim was false. You don’t do this because you are not an honest person. You are a mindless ideologue interested in fear mongering and peddling falsehoods based upon patently false information.

      D.

      • Big Dog says:

        Yes, an honest fellow such as yourself would keep alluding to a prosecution that failed without recognizing that it failed solely because of a technicality as in who signed the thing. There were plenty of other problems along the way as shown in the links provided.

        As for MJ, the analogy is stupid. We would all agree that cocaine is illegal and that people may not possess it. However, cocaine is used in medicine so doctors are allowed to possess it just as artists and others (I would assume jewelers and dentists) were allowed to posses it for its intended purposes. It would still be illegal for others. You can also see that the law allowed people to own $100 worth of gold and then placed barriers on how they could do it with respect to licenses and how the gold could be moved. If you took it to a bank you lost it even if you had a deal for them to hold it for you. The restrictions meant that you could own the $100 if you had it but you could not buy it if you did not and if you owned it the only thing you could do to ensure it was yours was to keep it in your home. The license issues and the storage issues were restrictions that made it damned near impossible to own gold.

        It had the same effect as a total ban.

        For you to say that because some categories were allowed to own gold is not relevant. As I pointed out, there are plenty of things banned that certain parts of society get. As for the MJ example, if it was outlawed and we were allowed to own the 5 oz but you could not smoke it and if you locked it up anywhere but your home you lost it then what good would it be?

        Yes customary use. It was customary for people to own it and use it to hedge against inflation. That was taken away.

      • Darrel says:

        Bigd would rather write pages of ludicrous spin rather than admit reality.

        Is the following statement true?

        “In the 1930s the president signed an Executive Order making it illegal to posses gold after a certain date.”

        No, it’s not true. It’s not remotely true. If Bigd was honest and not interested in defending blatant untruths he would admit this. At that point, a reasonable adult conversation could begin with regard to why some restrictions on hoarding gold (your numbers are wrong) were attempted for tax evasion reasons (clue: our society functions by taxing currency when it is exchanged for goods). As usual, we do not get to participate in that adult level of conversation because you are still stuck at the stamping your feet, denying reality and defending claims that are blatantly untrue.

        D.
        ————-
        “If you took it to a bank you lost it even if you had a deal for them to hold it for you.” –another untrue Bigd whopper

  7. Mr. Ogre says:

    I’m sorry, Darrel, but you’re clearly splitting hairs. I see this as similar to saying that the sun rises in the east. I’m sure you would argue that the sun doesn’t rise in the east because of the various seasonal differences and the degrees of difference in the tilt of the earth. So while you can technically argue that the sun doesn’t rise in the east, the statement that the sun rises in the east is true — just like the statement Big Dog made about possession of gold being illegal.

    • Big Dog says:

      Exactly Ogre. This statement is true:

      “In the 1930s the president signed an Executive Order making it illegal to posses gold after a certain date.”

      Are there caveats, sure but the statement is true. Nowhere does this statement say it is an absolute so, as in your example, the statement is true.

    • Darrel says:

      ORG: “just like the statement Big Dog made about possession of gold being illegal.”>>

      DAR
      BD’s statement that the possession of gold was illegal, is plainly false on it’s face, and it is not splitting hairs to point this out.

      Saying the sun rises in the East is a euphemism because it appears to rise from our perspective. It’s not the case that it appeared to be illegal to posses gold because it never was illegal to posses gold. Thus no comparison and your analogy fails.

      BD: “This statement is true:
      “In the 1930s the president signed an Executive Order making it illegal to posses gold after a certain date.”>>

      DAR
      And thus we see the insanity in it’s purest form. Bigd’s statement is false, according to his own referenced source.

      If everyone were allowed to posses five ounces of MJ, and everyone else using it in industry, profession or art were also allowed to own it as they wish, it would not be the case that it is “illegal” to posses MJ.

      It has never been illegal to own gold in the US and no one has ever signed an executive order “making it illegal to posses gold” as Bigd falsely claimed.

      If there is a limit to the number of fish you can catch in a given lake, it would not be accurate to say it is “illegal to catch fish” in that lake.

      If there is a limit to the speed you can drive on a road it would not be accurate to say it is “illegal to drive on the road.”

      A person is limited two presidential terms. Because there is a limit would it make sense to say it is illegal to be president (with the caveat that you CAN president for eight years)? No, that would be absurd. Just as Bigd’s claim is absurd.

      It does not follow that because something is limited (most things are), that it is illegal.

      D.
      ————–
      ps. Buy.com has a good deal on 2 TB external hard drives today. $100 with rebate. One problem, it’s illegal to own them (with the caveat that you are limited to owning 10).

      • Mr. Ogre says:

        I’m sorry that you don’t believe that the sun rises in the east, and I’m sorry that you equate a limitation imposed by a company with government killing people who disobey them.

  8. Big Dog says:

    If there is a limit to the speed you can drive on a road it would not be accurate to say it is “illegal to drive on the road.”

    No but it would be correct to say it is illegal to speed ont he road even if the cops won’t ticket you unless you are going more than 5 mph over the limit.

    Is cocaine illegal to own? The answer is yes. The law says you may not own cocaine. What happens if it is prescribed for you? What if you are a doctor who uses it?

    If we say it is illegal for a president to hold two terms then it is illegal even if he serves 2.5 by taking over for a president before his term expires.

    If we say that the government made it illegal to posses gold after a certain date then we know that the majority of the population could not buy gold and they could not own something unless they had it prior to the law.

    It is illegal to posses marijuana. Even if we know that the police will not bother someone who has a joint or two it is still illegal to own marijuana.

    It is illegal to own marijuana. We still say that is true in California even though people can get it with a prescription.

    Using this part about artists and dentists etc is useless. these people do not fit into the private citizen mold when discussed in this manner.

  9. Big Dog says:

    You were provided with the resource that laid the history out for you and demonstrated how it took place including the time AFTER the EO. They had to do it in increments but they did it.