from:"Patrick Chkoreff"

[e-gold-list] Re: gold price downturn and investment vehicles

2003-12-04 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Wednesday, December 3, 2003, at 11:12 PM, Sidd wrote:

Here's an interesting observation:
...
Thus, I have been MUCH better off keeping my money in a NZ bank at an
interest rate of 6.5% than I would have been if I had kept it in gold.
Interesting. You mentioned USD/AU and USD/NZD, but do you have a
bottom line figure on NZD/AU? I mean, how much has the price of gold
in NZD dropped over the last two years?

You Americans must be really pissed at how your currency is being
destroyed!
Two things happening in the US:

1. Falling dollar
2. Rampant protectionism, i.e. punitive tariffs on imports
Both deliberately designed to prop up American businesses who can't
compete on the world scene but have plenty of lobbying power in
Washington.

We Americans will be paying a lot more for steel, textiles, catfish,
computer chips -- you name it. If we buy from American companies we
pay high local prices. If we buy from Europe, China, Vietnam, South
Korea, etc. we pay high tariffs and high foreign exchange.

Bush hopes to smell like a rose by November, with low unemployment
figures, higher American corporate profits, and endorsements from labor
unions. Everything will cost more, but shoppers grumbling about the
price of cars and fish sticks, or invisibly paying $100 more for a
computer than they otherwise would have, are not going to trace that
back to Bush Co. in numbers that matter. Family funds will just sort
of drain down a bit for no reason, and everyone will vaguely wonder
why their take home pay (a disgusting term meaning the 40% of their
earnings they're allowed to keep) doesn't seem to go as far as it used
to.

But no Sidd, I don't think many Americans will be pissed about it
because they don't have much of a clue in the first place. Those who
have a clue might take action like buying gold or NZD, and maybe this
can generate enough price action to get clueless Americans to jump on
that bandwagon -- though most of them will be too late. The path of
least resistance for most of them is still stock and bond mutual funds.
Gold and currency investment options are more exotic and harder to
come by for average investors, and also much less publicized and even
deliberately downplayed by financial advisors, CNBC, etc.

A friend of mine who's been in the hedge fund industry for quite a
while has started a Forex currency fund and I think he's right on the
money so to speak. The other day I was talking with him about gold and
we got to thinking that he should include gold in his fund as just
another currency. There may come a day when ALL national fiat
currencies are dropping relative to gold. Any currency fund which
merely chases the relative squiggles between Euro, USD, NZD, etc. will
be chasing those squiggles straight down the tubes in terms of actual
purchasing power. So I think AU ought to be in his fund, though right
now the parent trading system under which his fund is organized does
not accommodate such a barbaric relic. But my friend said he might
call them up and suggest that they include AU in their system somehow.

Or maybe he could find a way to include AU on the side, as an adjunct
to the normal currency trading in the parent trading system, though it
would complicate the accounting quite a bit.

-- Patrick

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.

[e-gold-list] USD, GAU, EUR, AUD, etc.

2003-12-04 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

What a day for gold, with wild swings up and down, still ending up 
though:

http://kitco.com/charts/popup/au24hr3day.html

That pattern closely parallels how the US dollar did against other 
currencies too, including EUR, AUD, CHF, JPY, and to a lesser extent 
NZD.  (You can bring up intraday charts on http://betonmarkets.com if 
you're interested.)

BTW, a long time ago someone posted a link that showed charts of the 
price of gold in many different national currencies.  I wish I still 
had that link.

Also, I wonder if that temporary drop in the gold price had anything to 
do with Bush's announcement that he was lifting steel tariffs.  The 
drop didn't last long though.

-- Patrick

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: gold price downturn and investment vehicles

2003-12-04 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Thursday, December 4, 2003, at 03:22 PM, Sidd wrote:

Interesting. You mentioned USD/AU and USD/NZD, but do you have a
bottom line figure on NZD/AU? I mean, how much has the price of gold
in NZD dropped over the last two years?

Actually, from the data I have, in the same time period I quoted
before, it appears the gold rose by just over 2% in terms of NZD...
slightly better than the inflation rate of about 1.5%

But Sidd also said this yesterday:

Thus, I have been MUCH better off keeping my money in a NZ bank at an
interest rate of 6.5% than I would have been if I had kept it in gold.

OK, so I suppose the net advantage you gained by holding NZD rather
than gold over that period was about 4.5% (the bank interest rate of
6.5% minus the gold appreciation of 2%).

Your net advantage of 4.5% in holding NZD was not due to any relative
strength of NZD over gold, but was due entirely to the fact that you
were lending your money out and collecting interest on it. I admit
there aren't many low-risk opportunities to lend gold -- yet. But I
suspect one day we'll see high quality bonds denominated in gold,
perhaps paying 4.5% or more. :-)

I think the charts you want are at http://gold-price.net
Great site, thanks for the reminder! They don't show NZD yet though.

-- Patrick

[e-gold-list] Close above $400

2003-12-01 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

OK, there's your NY close above $400:

http://kitco.com/charts/popup/au24hr3day.html

Closed at $402.20.

-- Patrick

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: Pecunix security

2003-11-26 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Wednesday, November 26, 2003, at 04:50 AM, FileMatrix wrote:

However, this still leaves an account opened for automated password
cracking. Therefore, the system has to lock (for 24 hours) an account
for
which there are too many consecutive failed log-ins (for example, 10).
This
means that each PIK must be unique, so that the system can at any time
determine to what account each PIK belongs.
No George, as I said in an earlier email, there is no way for Pecunix
to lock out an account for repeated invalid login attempts. Pecunix
cannot identify an account just from the small portion of the PIK
entered on a login attempt. Only the secret account id identifies the
account, so if a hacker is trying those at random there is obviously no
way for Pecunix to know which account to lock out.

Besides, as Ian Green points out, locking out an account for repeated
invalid login attempts can have some very bad unintended consequences:

I agree with you George, but I would be concerned that such a lock out
system not be used as a denial of service method for attackers. For
example, a competitor could make a login attempt every nine, ten or
eleven seconds to the FileMatrix e-gold account and then take advantage
of the disgruntled FileMatrix customers who got bad service.
-- Patrick

[e-gold-list] Re: Pecunix security

2003-11-26 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Wednesday, November 26, 2003, at 11:46 AM, FileMatrix wrote:

Right, Patrick. For a moment I forgot that only a few elements from 
the PIK
are used in a log-in.  ...
Gotcha.


... A separate, unique, private log-in ID is required.

Besides, as Ian Green points out, locking out an account for repeated
invalid login attempts can have some very bad unintended consequences:
I haven't received Ian's email and I don't see it in the list.
It was Cracking the Turing number from 15-September.  Ancient history 
I know -- I just love doing open-ended email searches such as lock and 
Pecunix.  :-)


I said the same thing as Ian, earlier. But if the log-in ID is private,
nobody can disrupt a business since he doesn't know the private ID of 
that
business.
Precisely.

-- Patrick

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: Pecunix security

2003-11-24 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Sunday, November 23, 2003, at 07:34 PM, Jim Davidson wrote:

I believe Patrick made the point
But the way Pecunix displays the PIKs makes it difficult if not
impossible to copy and paste them.
...  Since we know
that keystroke loggers and clipboard loggers are out there,
it seems uncommonly foolish to move back to a typing or
pasting approach.  ...


Jim, we're not talking about typing or pasting the PIKs at the point of 
login.  George just wants a way to copy and paste new PIKs issued to 
him during the account creation process, because he likes to keep his 
PIKs and passwords in an encrypted file.

-- Patrick

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: Gold-Cart Article... trusting e-gold/delayed payments

2003-11-24 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Monday, November 24, 2003, at 05:02 AM, FileMatrix wrote:

That's not a problem. The guy who gets your wallet still cannot log
in
because he doesn't have your secret Login ID.
That would be true if the password could be longer. As it is now,
there are
about 100 millions combinations (users usually choose a word, that
makes
about 1 word, multiplied with 1 numbers = 100 millions), and
thus it
could be cracked in a few days.

Yes, you would need to set up an automated process to test those 100
million combinations by actually attempting to log in with each one.
This also requires the ability to read the PIK prompt images. I'm not
saying it's impossible or anything, just saying what's involved.

It's interesting to note in this scenario that there is no way for the
Pecunix system to lock out an account after too many failed login
attempts, because it has no idea WHICH account to lock out.

By the way George, for those of us hyper-secure paranoid tin foil hat
types, you can always set up your Pecunix account to require PGP
access. In this mode, Pecunix presents you with a challenge / response
problem that only the holder of the private key can successfully answer.

-- Patrick

[e-gold-list] Re: Goldbugs are Atheist Commie Terrorists?

2003-11-24 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Monday, November 24, 2003, at 12:04 PM, The Gold Economy wrote:

The fact that e-gold is liked by Russians seems to be proof to some 
that
goldbugs are atheist commies terrorists.
Wow, that's the worst kind of atheist.  Besides, I think they are far 
outnumbered by theist free-market peaceful goldbugs.

-- Patrick

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: the BEST way to save money

2003-11-24 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Monday, November 24, 2003, at 01:46 PM, James M. Ray wrote:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/pp/03328/242570.stm

Don't spend it with credit cards. This lesson is another
reason that e-metal makes a *GREAT* holiday gift!
JMR


Generally good advice, but what in the WORLD is this supposed to mean?

Measured with a diverse group of retailers, spending by [store-issued 
credit cardholders] averages from 24 percent to nearly 70 percent more 
per purchase, GE Consumer Finance sales literature reports.

Guess whose pockets that 24 percent to 70 percent added purchase price 
is coming from? Those of us who carry the GE Consumer Finance credit 
cards!


I do not grasp the point or the reasoning there.

Certain people spend 24% more per purchase, and that extra purchase 
price is coming from someone else's pockets?  What the?

-- Patrick

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.

[e-gold-list] gold-cart.com

2003-11-24 Thread Patrick Chkoreff



Well Sidd, gold-cart.com works very nicely.  In just a few minutes I 
opened up an account, set up a test item, and threw a button down on a 
web page.  Then I used the button to buy two items.  I paid 2.0 grams 
of Goldmoney and instantly received 2.0 grams of Pecunix.  Pretty cool 
for just five or ten minutes of effort.

-- Patrick

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: the world before e-gold

2003-11-24 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Monday, November 24, 2003, at 05:43 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

the world before e-gold feels like the world currently!!
Zen man awakes and speaks enigma.  New wonders on horizon?

-- Patrick

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: Gold-Cart Article... trusting e-gold/delayed payments

2003-11-23 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Sunday, November 23, 2003, at 05:39 AM, FileMatrix wrote:

it is far more secure to have the PIK printed and carried in your 
wallet
True, unless someone steals your wallet, or you loose it. ...
That's not a problem.  The guy who gets your wallet still cannot log in 
because he doesn't have your secret Login ID.

-- Patrick

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: Gold-Cart Article... trusting e-gold/delayed payments

2003-11-23 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Sunday, November 23, 2003, at 09:53 AM, Katz Global Media wrote:

...
But why use tempest when there are dongles hanging out of the routers 
at the
nocs for law enforcement to plug into?
Yes but intercepting a message through a dongle doesn't help if the 
message is encrypted.  Tempest lets them read a message as it is 
displayed on your computer screen after you decrypt it.

-- Patrick

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.

[e-gold-list] Watch the NY Open

2003-11-21 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

Some kind of blip in London gold today, could get interesting in NY.

http://kitco.com/charts/popup/au24hr3day.html

-- Patrick

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: Gold-Cart Article... trusting e-gold/delayed payments

2003-11-21 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Friday, November 21, 2003, at 10:44 AM, FileMatrix wrote:

...
Here are my suggestions: ...

Sidd:

George makes some intriguing suggestions here.

But just to focus on one small point for a moment, George mentioned
that he would like the ability to copy and paste his PIKs into an
encrypted file. This never occurred to me because I printed out my
PIKs and read them off a piece of paper whenever I log in.

But the way Pecunix displays the PIKs makes it difficult if not
impossible to copy and paste them. So maybe Pecunix could also display
each PIK in pure text in a form somewhat like George suggests:

1-a 2-4 3-T 4-u 5-X 6-b 7-Q 8-N 9-e 10-j 11-Y 12-u 13-A 14-m 15-9 16-h

That would let the user copy and paste the PIKs with NO other changes
to the login system.

Later you might want to consider the merits of George's suggestion to
reduce the combo boxes to just the digits 0 - 9, but this is an
entirely separate and optional issue.

T0-M1-B2-C3-R4-V5-Z6-G7-J8-P9-D0-H1-N2-L3-F4-S5

By the way, George, although this approach would simplify choosing from
the combo boxes, you are definitely cutting the probability sample
space if you do this. But whether that matters or not is another
question.

Right now a Pecunix PIK uses the digits 2-9 and the upper and lower
case alphabet except for India, Lima, Oscar. That's 8+23+23 = 54
characters. Now, ignoring for a moment the fact that a PIK does not
contain repeated characters, that's roughly O(54^16) possible PIKs, or
about O(10^27). Your scheme would have exactly 10^16 possible PIKs
because you would obviously have to allow repeated digits.

Now cutting the number of PIKs by a factor of 10^11 may not be a
serious concern because you need both a PIK and a secret login name to
log into a Pecunix account. So 10^16 may be quite enough PIKs,
especially if it simplifies the user interface (considerably!) and
poses no real threat to security.

By the way, I have not yet shown my wife how to log into my Pecunix
account, though I've been meaning to do so. (Hmm, maybe I better just
give her read-only access for now so she doesn't run out and buy drapes
with it. :-) I'll let everyone know how she reacts to the process.

George wrote:

At the end of the registration process, display all user information
in an
edit-box and put a button to copy the text to the clipboard, so that the
user could save it into a file:
---
* User name = ...
* User address = ...
* Account name = ...
* Password = ...
* Full access PIK = ...
* Limited access PIK = ...
* Read-only access PIK = ...
* Secret information = ...
* Log-in URL = ...
* PGP signature check URL =
---

VERY nice suggestion, George. Again Sidd, all of this could be done
with NO other fundamental changes to the system.

But George, I honestly think that most ordinary users will just PRINT
OUT their PIKs, exactly as I did because I was trying to be as
ordinary as possible and then assess how secure I felt with that.
Your method of pasting into an file, encrypted or not, is probably
something only a sophisticated user would do. Most users will just
want to press Print and then keep the sheets in their briefcase or
something.

However, cutting down the combo boxes to just the digits 0-9 could very
well make the system feel a lot easier to use. But if you did this,
you might want to list the letter prompts in alphabetical order to
make it easier for users to search for the associated digit:

B2-C3-D0-F4-G7-H1-J8-L3-M1-N2-P9-R4-S5-T0-V5-Z6

I note here that it seems that George has cleverly not used vowels,
perhaps to avoid accidentally spelling out an offensive word in the
login prompt sequence? :-)

Anyway, a random login prompt sequence chosen from the PIK above might
be:

H: (combo 0-9)
N: (combo 0-9)
Z: (combo 0-9)
D: (combo 0-9)
That might be nice.

-- Patrick
http://fexl.com
---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: Gold-Cart Article... trusting e-gold/delayed payments

2003-11-21 Thread Patrick Chkoreff



On Friday, November 21, 2003, at 12:24 PM, Viking Coder wrote:

I just created a Pecunix account. The system is great
...
No way for a beginner to complete the registration and log-in process.
This seems to be the general consesus of Pecunix. I haven't had a 
chance
to personally check it out though - hopefully this weekend.


As I promised I just showed my wife how to log into my Pecunix account. 
 I did not take her through the new account creation process, though, 
which I admit is more difficult than merely logging in.


It seems kind of ironic that a system designed to protect the un-tech 
savy
from their own security ignorance is too complicated for un-tech savy
users to properly use.
So I asked my wife what she thought about that whole PIK / combo box 
process.  She understood it immediately, and instructed me to tell the 
list that if she can do it, anyone can.

But certainly creating a new account is a horse of a different color, 
I'll admit.

-- Patrick

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: the all in one IG system .. JP speaks

2003-11-21 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Friday, November 21, 2003, at 08:13 PM, Robert B.Z. wrote:

For obvious reasons Sidd, had to use pecunix for his cart, why don't
you
make one that gives merchants the choice in which currency to receive
it
in? Imagine, new IGs would be likely to pay you to include their
currency
in your system, n'est-ce pas? And once they are included, 'all
merchants'
accept the newbies currency by default - without having to add each and
everyone of them themselves, each time.

So were looking at these features or potential features:

1. Gold-Cart customers can spend any IG and merchants receive Pecunix.

2. Pecunix account holders can spend any IG.

3. Gold-Cart customers can spend any IG and merchants receive any IG.

I can see why Sidd might not want to implement feature (3) right away
because at this point in time it might degenerate into a straight
pass-through with 99% of customers spending e-gold and 99% of merchants
accepting e-gold. It's really feature (1) that gives merchants a
primary motive to accept Pecunix.

Feature (2) can then make the merchants' lives easier and help reduce
excess e-gold inventory at Open2Exchange. (Though if you reach an
excess of ~400 oz, I like the idea of redeeming a bar from e-gold and
bailing it into Pecunix, as the JP interview suggests. :-)

If those two features are successful enough, you might find only a
minor demand for feature (3) at that point. A Pecunix account holder
such as myself could still buy Capulin coffee with e-gold via (2), or
perhaps Capulin will have migrated to the Gold-Cart by then, setting up
a Pecunix account and using (2) to make any necessary e-gold payments
(e.g. to exchangers or other vendors who only accept e-gold).

Interesting dynamics, Sidd, and I look forward to seeing the
innovations at Open2Exchange also. Enjoy your weekend with the family.

-- Patrick

[e-gold-list] Re: New Shopping Cart System Accepts Multiple Gold Currencies

2003-11-20 Thread Patrick Chkoreff



On Thursday, November 20, 2003, at 11:16 AM, The Gold Economy wrote:

Garzoo, Inc. has launched a new shopping cart service that accepts 
multiple
gold currencies.  Called Gold-Cart, this shopping cart service 
currently
allows merchants to accept payments from e-gold, GoldMoney, 1MDC, 
e-Bullion
and Pecunix.

http://goldeconomy.com/ct/t.php?l=135


That is WAY cool!  I just bought the funny story for $0.05, paying with 
1mdc.

The mixture of Pecunix, Open2Exchange, and Garzoo is HOT!

Now a merchant who wants to start accepting this gold stuff can just 
do this:

1.  Create a Pecunix account.
2.  Create a Gold-Cart account and set up the products to be sold.
Poof.  You now have a fully functional web store and a listing on 
Garzoo.  Sales and marketing right out of the starting gate.

And you don't have to worry about which currencies you'll accept.  Just 
accept Pecunix and anyone can pay you.

-- Patrick
http://fexl.com
---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: Delayed payments

2003-11-20 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Thursday, November 20, 2003, at 12:06 PM, Robert B.Z. wrote:

How about agreeing that people who get their metal stolen because they
use
too easy a password or have it on a postit next to their monitor
*deserve*
to loose their stash because it keeps them among other pedestrians and
stuck with ugly chicks? In that way they stay pretty much out of our
gene
pool and give Darwin a chance...
:-)

Yes, it's generally better not to shield them too much so they can
learn sooner. Better to log in through an email link today and lose 10
grams than to do it next year and lose 200 grams.

Remember how it was when kids beat each other up and got stronger from
it
instead of their parents being sued?
Yes, I remember. Nobody died and we still have all our teeth.

Remember how we rode our bikes without helmets, brakes and lights,
crashed
twice a year, broke limbs and teeth?
Yes, we rode 'em something fierce, racing, jumping, occasionally
crashing and losing some hide on the asphalt.

Remember how caring parents actually let us burn ourselves ever so
slightly so we'd get an idea why they kept saying it was dangerous?
Yep. We learned.

Remember when human interaction didn't involve the constant scare of
who
will sue you next?
Hell yeah.

I also remember when people quit smoking cancer sticks as they were
commonly called in the 1970's instead of waiting around for emphysema
to set in so they could sue the cigarette manufacturers.

Or, some people just CUT BACK on smoking or drinking, moderating their
consumption. That concept is somewhat anathema in today's irrational
Zero Tolerance culture.

-- Patrick

[e-gold-list] Re: basic e-gold site usage experience

2003-11-18 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Tuesday, November 18, 2003, at 03:46 AM, David Hillary wrote:

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Of course you put a COMMA between groups of three numbers in big 
numbers.

Good grief.
Give us a break JPM. John Kenrick didn't just make it up. I was taught 
to
use a space, and never a comma at school and have done so ever since. 
...


In a free-form web input field it would be easy to accommodate all 
standards with no ambiguity whatsoever.  You could even accommodate 
mutant hybrids of standards if you wanted.

123 456 789 .  14159 265

123,456,789.14159,265

123.456.789,14159.265

123 456.789, 14159  265

123 456 789

123456789

123_456_789.141_592_65

Now you might not want to be THAT permissive, but the general rule is 
to interpret any UNIQUE separator character as the pivot between the 
integer and fraction portions of the number.  Digits both to the left 
and right of the pivot can be broken up using any arbitrary choice of 
separators (space, comma, dot, or underscore) other than the pivot 
character itself.

I think e-gold could easily implement a numeric entry rule like this 
that would accommodate the Americans, Europeans, and all the various 
fans and enemies of embedded white space.  (Enemies would include 
programming language devotees with a natural aversion to white space in 
a numeric constant.)

-- Patrick

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: basic e-gold site usage experience

2003-11-18 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Tuesday, November 18, 2003, at 05:23 AM, David Beroff wrote:

Agreed, but your very own examples demonstrate the problem.
...
This one has potentially two different pivots:
123 456.789, 14159 265

Right, that's a problem, one that I missed at 4:00 AM.

It is possible to refine the rule to recognize your example as an error
by distinguishing the strong separators period and comma from the
weak separators space, underscore, and accent (George's suggestion).

But none of that matters because one is still faced with the
fundamental question of how to interpret these simple entries:

123,456

123.456

I think it is clear that if those numbers are entered as amounts of
grams, dollars, or euros they should be interpreted as (123 + 456 /
1000). It would be idiotic to assume the user intends to spend 123456
of those things.

I guess if you want to spend some absurdly high amount of something
like Turkish lira one could allow space as a separator:

123 456,78

E-gold could adopt the simple rule that they will allow either a single
period or comma in a number to serve as a fractional pivot, and any
other characters in the entry must be either digits or spaces. That's
it.

This sensible rule is in harmony with the ISO 31-0:1992 standard that
John Kenrick noted on this list, and with the standard that David
Hillary learned in school.

[e-gold-list] Re: E-land, nuts, savings

2003-11-18 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Tuesday, November 18, 2003, at 05:19 AM, Danny Van den Berghe wrote:

Acceptable roi depends on the risk of the investment.
A stock that cannot guarantee me any shareholder rights, belongs to 
highest
possible risk.
Danny, I'm honestly curious what shareholder rights you consider 
important to have.  For example, what rights do you have with Microsoft 
shares that you do not have with TGC shares?

That will probably sound like a ridiculously obvious question to some 
of you more well-versed than I in the subtleties of common stocks.  
Frankly, my eyes glaze over when I see a proxy voting statement.  The 
only things I really know about common stocks are (1) some of them pay 
dividends and (2) all of them fluctuate in price.

-- Patrick

We are here on earth to do good for others. What the others are here 
for, I don't know.
-- W.H. Auden on the subject of altruism

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.

[e-gold-list] Gold Price Retrace

2003-11-18 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

There's a nice retracing of the gold price after yesterday's plummet:

http://kitco.com/charts/popup/au24hr3day.html

-- Patrick

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: basic e-gold site usage experience

2003-11-18 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

I wrote:

Mrrrm... Something's just rubbing me the wrong way about contextual
sensitivity in this particular case, especially since I'm not so
sure that such numbers would be idiotic. I've done e-gold
transactions
with five figures of USD, so I don't see it as such a stretch to
consider
six. Similarly, e-gold is well suited for very tiny spends, as well.

I said the assumption would be idiotic, not the numbers. I'm talking
probability here. But I'll say it without the loaded word idiotic.

Assume for the sake of discussion that it is possible to spend dollars
and euros to three decimal places. (I don't know if e-gold allows
this, but I don't see why not.) I believe the following.

If a randomly chosen e-gold user specifies an amount of 123,456 euros
it is much more likely that he intends (123 + 456 / 1000) euros rather
than 123456. In this case the user is likely to be non-American.

If a randomly chosen e-gold user specifies an amount of 123,456 dollars
it is much more likely that he intends (123 + 456 / 1000) dollars
rather than 123456. In this case the user is likely to be non-American.

If a randomly chosen e-gold user specifies an amount of 123,456 grams
it is much more likely that he intends (123 + 456 / 1) grams rather
than 123456. In this case the user is likely to be non-American.

If a randomly chosen e-gold user specifies an amount of 123.456 euros
it is much more likely that he intends (123 + 456 / 1000) euros rather
than 123456. In this case the user is likely to be American.

If a randomly chosen e-gold user specifies an amount of 123.456 dollars
it is much more likely that he intends (123 + 456 / 1000) dollars
rather than 123456. In this case the user is likely to be American.

If a randomly chosen e-gold user specifies a spend of 123.456 grams it
is much more likely that he intends (123 + 456 / 1000) grams rather
than 123456. In this case the user is likely to be American.

What I am proposing is to follow three principles simultaneously: (1)
maximum simplicity, (2) maximal cultural accommodation and (3) follow
the course of least potential harm.

If some specifies a spend amount of 123,456 dollars, just assume it's a
non-American who wishes to spend (123 + 456 / 1000) dollars. That is
much more likely to be correct, and much less likely to cause harm,
than assuming it's an American who wishes to spend 123456 dollars. A
similar argument applies to the case of dollars and grams.

You simply decree that there can be at most one comma or period in a
number, and any number of digits or spaces. It would simply be an
error to say 123,456.789. Instead, you'd have to say 123456.789 or
123456,789 or 123 456.789 etc. etc.

I mean really, how often is it important to use a damn separator
character in an e-gold spend amount? How many kilogram or microgram
spends do people really do, and would it kill them to just run the
numbers together or learn to use a space?

The rule is simple, accommodative, and benign.

-- Patrick

[e-gold-list] touched $400

2003-11-18 Thread Patrick Chkoreff



Gold just now touched $400 per troy ounce, at about 00:47 UTC on 
Wednesday November 19, 2003.

http://kitco.com/charts/popup/au24hr3day.html

-- Patrick

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: basic e-gold site usage experience

2003-11-17 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Monday, November 17, 2003, at 03:08 PM, John Kenrick wrote:

The international standard (ISO 31-0:1992) says (Section 3.3.1, page
11):
To facilitate the reading of numbers with many digits,
these may be separated into suitable groups, preferable of
three, counting from the decimal sign toward the left and the
right; the groups should be separated by a small space, and
never by a comma or a point, nor by any other means.


Great information, John.

Of course, what the heck is a small space in the ASCII character set?

When I was going to Georgia Tech in the 1980's there were some 
researchers developing a new programming language, and they allowed 
underscores '_' to delimit digit groups.  This is directly in the 
spirit of ISO 31-0:1992 above, with '_' representing a small space.

With that convention you can represent a decimal number using either 
the American '.' convention or the European ',' convention.  You could 
even separate digits to the right of the point using '_' as well.



1_234_567_890.141_592_653_589_793_23

-- or --

1_234_567_890,141_592_653_589_793_23

-- Patrick

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: basic e-gold site usage experience

2003-11-17 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Monday, November 17, 2003, at 09:48 PM, Wilkinson Jens wrote:

 --- Patrick Chkoreff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Of course, what the heck is a small space in the
ASCII character set?
This is just a guess, but there are some languages like
Chinese, Japanese, and Arabic that cannot be encoded in
just one byte so they have double-byte characters. ...
Right, it's Unicode, but I'm an old dog who learned ASCII as a teenager 
in 1974 so I'll probably use ASCII '_'  to represent the Unicode small 
space in the next 12_570 emails I write.  Also, I was already planning 
to allow '_' as a digit separator in my programming language Fexl.

-- Patrick

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: e-wine, e-land, e-gold

2003-11-10 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Sunday, November 9, 2003, at 01:50 PM, Danny Van den Berghe wrote:

Next suppose the market value of the 10g bottles doubles to 20g
The value of our portfolio is up to 90g with still 150 shares
outstanding.
This means each share has gone up in worth to 0.6g
To redeem the 30g botlle you need only 50 shares now.

Yes, I find this situation interesting.

We go from this:

10g (25 shares)
30g (75 shares)
10g (25 shares)
10g (25 shares)
---
60g (150 shares)
To this:

20g (33.3 shares)
30g (50 shares)
20g (33.3 shares)
20g (33.3 shares)
-
90g (150 shares)

In terms of grams, the price of the 10g bottles increased by 100%, and
the price of the 30g bottle remained constant.

In terms of shares, the price of the 10g bottles increased by 50%, and
the price of the 30g bottle decreased by 33.3%.

Note however that the price of the 30g (50 share) bottle is precisely
50% higher than the price of the 20g (33.3 share) bottle regardless of
whether it is priced in grams or shares.

I find these distinctions interesting and they seem to have some
relevance to your assertion below that the portfolio could be priced
directly in shares without reference to some other underlying
homogenous asset. (Though I haven't thought it all the way through
yet.)

Mathematically you don't strictly need another homogenous asset
currency to
prize your wines.
The homogenous currency can be the e-wine share itself, but then your
mathematics become a little more complicated.

I find this assertion very interesting and would like to see how it
might be done and how it relates to my little arithmetical observations
above.

I would expect that if the value of a bottle doubles, its price should
double. If the value of a bottle remains constant, its price should
remain constant. Yet if you price the bottles in our example
directly in terms of shares, the prices increase by only 50% in the
first case and decrease by 33.3% in the latter case. So I am not yet
convinced that pricing in terms of shares alone without any reference
to some other homogenous system of units is possible.

-- Patrick

[e-gold-list] Re: e-wine, e-land, e-gold

2003-11-10 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Sunday, November 9, 2003, at 02:55 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

Indeed, last night my wife and I went out for supper with a neighbor 
couple who collect wine.  He brought a 1989 Margaux ..
which Chateaux dude ???


Chateau Prieure Lichine.

-- Patrick

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.

[e-gold-list] e-wine, e-land, e-gold

2003-11-09 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Saturday, November 8, 2003, at 06:52 PM, James M. Ray wrote:

I still think e-wine (properly storing good reds) would be better.

Think about the joy of redemption! :) A bottle or case of wine is
exactly the right density, and with proper storage, packaging,
and shipping you'd have an amazing product which might start
out as a gift-currency and end up as a real currency of sorts.

Indeed, last night my wife and I went out for supper with a neighbor
couple who collect wine. He brought a 1989 Margaux to the restaurant
and it was very good. (He also brought a very good 2001 white wine but
I forgot what it was.)

After supper we went back to his house and saw his wine cellar. I saw
reds dated from 1969 through 2001. He mentioned that he had some from
the 1950's too. He had an interesting display of dead soldiers
(empty wine bottles), each with a story of its own.

By the way, I spoke with him about internet gold and he was VERY
intrigued -- I am sure he and I will discuss IG separately over cigars
one evening.

Of course, unlike gold, assets like red wines and land suffer from lack
of uniformity. So, how does one support redemption of such
heterogenous assets? By redemption, I don't mean merely trading shares
in a market. I mean actually taking possession and control of an
actual physical asset. True redemption means you can actually drink
the wine or use the land to build a house, drill a well, throw a
bonfire party, or raise crops like tomatoes, cotton, or timber.

At first glance, one might think that true redemption of wines would
require the issuance of notes redeemable for specific bottles or at
least specific vintages. Notes representing shares of a bottle or
vintage might also be required to make smaller trades possible.
However, issuing shares in a specific physical asset can be problematic
because a single lone holdout shareholder can forever prevent the act
of redemption.

So perhaps after all it would be necessary to structure it like a REIT
(Real Estate Investment Trust), except in the case of wine it would be
a WIT. Participants would own shares of the entire market value of the
wine collection, and could redeem a specific bottle by presenting
shares with a total value equal to that of the desired bottle.

For example, an issuer could have one bottle worth 10g and another
worth 30g, and issue 100 shares worth 0.4g a piece. Anyone who
presented 25 shares could redeem the 10g bottle, and anyone who
presented 75 shares could redeem the 30g bottle.

After redemption, the total value of the WIT would drop by the value of
the bottle redeemed, but the total number of shares in existence would
also drop accordingly and thus the market value of each outstanding
share would remain constant.

Note that to pull this off it is necessary to value the heterogenous
assets (e.g. wine, land) in terms of a truly homogenous asset (e.g.
gold). One might also express the value in terms of something like
dollars, though I am not exactly sure just what a dollar is. So I
would prefer an actual physical asset like gold or silver as the basis
of denomination. But that's just my preference because I like thinking
in terms of well-defined physical and logical entities -- certainly
that is not a requirement of the system.

-- Patrick

[e-gold-list] ... and e-weed etc.

2003-11-09 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Sunday, November 9, 2003, at 06:42 AM, Danny Van den Berghe wrote:

Hey jpm
You have a huge untapped market with this DGC software of yours..
Perhaps some (not so) crazy Dutch will create 'e-weed' based on the
market
prices for soft drugs in Holland, and redeemable for the real stuff
when you
visit Amsterdam.
I guess many people would think it cool to own and pay with drugs
without
risking to go to jail in their country.

Excellent idea, Danny, and you bring up yet another asset class. Weed
is a rapidly produced and rapidly perishing asset. As such, it is
quite unlike gold, land, and wine. Thus, there could not really be a
vault or reserve of constant physically identifiable assets. It
would be more like a promise of delivery of future production, much
like wheat or orange juice futures.

Then there's your other idea for an asset redeemable in Amsterdam.
That belongs to yet another asset class -- a pure service (or impure
depending on your point of view :-).

All of these, e-wine, e-land, e-weed, or e-f**k could be valued in
terms of a homogenous asset like gold or dollars and traded
accordingly. The total value of the wine, land, weed, etc. could even
EXCEED the total amount of actual gold or dollars available for trade
and the whole thing could still work.

-- Patrick

[e-gold-list] Re: Saving (was Re: e-gold for stocks)

2003-11-07 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Friday, November 7, 2003, at 12:23 PM, Danny Van den Berghe wrote:

Saving money does not serve any purpose.
Continuously invest all the money you don't need.


Yes, I think it's good to invest one's savings.

-- Patrick

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: Interesting Change

2003-11-06 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Thursday, November 6, 2003, at 10:44 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I like the subtle change in the user interface ... no more accidentally
spending 12.xx times what I meant to!


I took a look but I don't see what changed.  The interface forces you 
to choose the units (e.g. grams or dollars) explicitly, but didn't it 
always do that?  What am I missing?

-- Patrick

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: Saving (was Re: e-gold for stocks)

2003-11-06 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Thursday, November 6, 2003, at 06:21 AM, Danny Van den Berghe wrote:

Don't worry, I remember your major points:

- an economy cannot function effectively without using fiat tokens.


[Note:  A few quotes from your posts might help you to understand how I 
arrived at certain conclusions.]

My position was and is that a paper money system alongside a free 
market has
all the advantages that paper money gives (extra liquidity in the 
system)
and all the advantages of gold too because is freely available and if 
the
paper currency system is abused people will flock to gold.

When you have paper money alongside gold and silver and other stores of
value, you have the best of both worlds.
You also seem to forget that when 10% extra paper money is added in the
circulation, this money ends up in somebody's pockets and it could very 
well
be yours.
Even if the new money is wasted by stupid governments and goes to 
corrupt
government contractors in the first stage, these contractors will use 
the
new money again on equipment and materials they need, or blow it in the
casino, so somehow the new money spreads in the economy and becomes
somebody's new wealth.

And the depositors are demonstrating in the streets asking for their 
gold:
8000oz of it...

In a paper economy you can do it because you print the cash if needed.
But you cannot print more gold.
If you have people who systematically spend less than they earn, then 
you
will need another group who systematically spend more than they earn.
The latter is not possible unless they can borrow unlimited.
So this economy will come to a halt when the 'spenders' cannot borrow 
any
more.

And it is investment that has given us better health-care, better 
cars, a
better standard of living.
Saving gold in a vault has done nothing to that effect.

Thats why a growing money supply is better.



[Note:  OK, maybe you're not saying the economy cannot function 
effectively in absolute terms -- you seem to be saying cannot function 
as effectively as it might.]


- using gold alone would hamper an economy because people would not
invest enough.


In a gold only economy, with a strictly limited supply of money(gold), 
it is
obvious that if more gold goes in vaults there is less gold to serve
transaction in the economy.

[Note:  I have no idea why you attribute this characteristic to gold 
system only, when the same could be said for fiat tokens.]

If you keep money supply fixed, the savings rise in value because
advancing technology works deflationary.
That actually encourages people to do nothing with their savings.
Just let others take the risks, let them develop the technology, and you
will reap the benefits because your gold will buy more and better stuff 
in
the future at lower prices.
These people who keep the gold in their vault get something for nothing
here, they don't do anything, and they are rewarded with increasing
purchasing power of the gold they kept in store.

Or shorter:
A limited money supply system discourages investment and encourages 
saving.
A growing money supply system discourages saving and encourages 
investment.

[Note:  Gee, sounds exactly like one of the major points I listed.]



- it is important to pump up the money supply to force people to 
invest.


You inflate the currency just enough to offset the deflationary effect 
of
advancing technology.
That encourages people to do something with their money, invest it in
something useful.
If they do just average with the investment, they will catch their fair
share of the increased money supply.
If they make bad investments, they will not make a profit and not take 
their
share of the new money.
If they keep their money in a matress, they will also not catch a piece 
of
the new money.
The money they kept in the matress has stayed the same, but because 
there is
more money in circulation now, they are relatively poorer.
But why on earth would they deserve a part of the new wealth, as they 
have
not taken any part in creating it?

[Note:  Oh, excuse me, not force -- just encourage, right?  As in I 
encourage you to invest in order to avoid losing your purchasing 
power.]

Or shorter:
A limited money supply system discourages investment and encourages 
saving.
A growing money supply system discourages saving and encourages 
investment.





I think these are false.
False indeed.
These are not my points , but what you have made of them..
No blame on you.


Oh boy, here we go with the patronizing condescending paternalistic pat 
on the head.  The good old reliable You just don't get it approach.



When one is not understood there are four possibilities:
1) One has it wrong
2) One fails to express it clear enough
3) The other simply doesn't get it
4) The other doesn't want to get it.


You took the time to condescend but not the time to illuminate.


Case 1 or 2, I have done what I could.
Case 3 or 4, that is none of my business.


It seems that you have expressed your views fairly clearly in the 
quotes

[e-gold-list] Purpose of Saving

2003-11-05 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

Here is Ludwig von Mises writing on the subject of Capital Goods and
Capital:

http://www.mises.org/humanaction/chap15sec2.asp

Mises views saving as integral to the formation of capital. Saving is
purposeful, which is why I titled this email Purpose of Saving.

Excerpts:

At the outset of every step forward on the road to a more plentiful
existence is saving--the provisionment of products that makes it
possible to prolong the average period of time elapsing between the
beginning of the production process and its turning out of a product
ready for use and consumption.
...
These goods are called capital goods. Thus, saving and the resulting
accumulation of capital goods are at the beginning of every attempt to
improve the material conditions of man; they are the foundation of
human civilization. Without saving and capital accumulation there could
not be any striving toward non-material ends.

...

The immediate end of acquisitive action is to increase or, at least, to
preserve the capital. That amount which can be consumed within a
definite period without lowering the capital is called income. If
consumption exceeds the income available, the difference is called
capital consumption. If the income available is greater than the amount
consumed, the difference is called saving. Among the main tasks of
economic calculation are those of establishing the magnitudes of
income, saving, and capital consumption.

-- Patrick

[e-gold-list] Re: e-gold for stocks

2003-11-04 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Tuesday, November 4, 2003, at 04:06 AM, Danny Van den Berghe wrote:

Danny, I'm sure we could go on discussing glittering tautologies all
day long, but I don't remember what point you're trying to make.
That's what happens when you are not interested to come to the point, 
and
only arguing to get away from it: you forget what point the other was 
trying
to make.


Don't worry, I remember your major points:

- an economy cannot function effectively without using fiat tokens.

- using gold alone would hamper an economy because people would not 
invest enough.

- it is important to pump up the money supply to force people to invest.

I think these are false.

My problem with your last post is that all I saw was a bunch of 
free-floating examples about zero-sum money moving around, and I didn't 
see you connecting with your points and driving them home.

-- Patrick

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: e-gold for stocks

2003-11-03 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Monday, November 3, 2003, at 07:45 AM, Danny Van den Berghe wrote:

It is possible for some people to 'save', but then you need other
people who
spend more than they earn by borrowing or taking away from their
'savings'.
...


Danny, I'm sure we could go on discussing glittering tautologies all 
day long, but I don't remember what point you're trying to make.

-- Patrick

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: e-gold for stocks

2003-11-02 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Sunday, November 2, 2003, at 02:54 AM, Danny Van den Berghe wrote:

It is possible for some people to 'save', but then you need other 
people who
spend more than they earn by borrowing or taking away from their 
'savings'.
Savings are simply assets that you own now which you can consume or 
trade in the future.

By that definition, it is both possible and desirable for every 
individual on earth simultaneously to save.

There is no zero-sum arithmetical constraint as you describe.

The survival of the species does not depend on the existence of net 
debtors.

-- Patrick

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: e-gold for stocks

2003-11-01 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Saturday, November 1, 2003, at 12:50 PM, Danny Van den Berghe wrote:

Um, if people produce more than they consume, then they have funds to
see them through a rainy day or retirement, and they have funds to
invest so they can earn a reward for putting their savings at risk.
That is a very good thing.
Not true. If the average person produces more than he consumes, it 
means
there is a lot of produce rotting away unsold.
What's so good about that?
Danny, you are just being contentious.  I was talking about saving.  Of 
course you have to SELL what you produce (or keep it for your own use) 
if you want to save anything.  Of course it's bad for a farmer to grow 
300 acres of tomatoes he can't sell, just letting them rot in the field.

-- Patrick

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: e-gold for stocks

2003-10-31 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

Patrick wrote:

It's a wild wacky spending binge from top to bottom! Prices are going
through the roof! And why? Because when you bail an asset into a
vault and get a note for that asset, then both the original asset AND
the note both EXIST! And when two items that are both technically
defined as money both EXIST, then well, by DEFINITION the money supply
has fully DOUBLED!
John wrote:

You are talking about a fractional reserve system like US banks. ...

I wrote that entirely sarcastically, John. I agree that gold
certificates are absolutely nothing like fractional reserve lending.
The former has no effect on the money supply; the latter has a profound
effect -- indeed, the most profound effect of all, far greater than
the effect of printing presses.

So is e-gold fractional reserve? No. Therefore e-gold is not
increasing the
money supply. If the gold in the vault was being used by someone as
money
and at the same time that gold was used to make goldgrams being spent
by
someone else, *that* grows the money supply, that is fractional
reserve.
E-gold is not fractional reserve.

Definitely.

If you bail a gold coin into my vault and I issue a note for that
coin,
then *POOF*! Suddenly the money supply has doubled ...
It's not really about price increases. When you issue a note for the
coin,
both the coin and the note exist, sure. But the coin -ceases to be
money- in
any functional way. It is certainly not part of the money supply,
which is
the supply of available money circulating in the economy.

John, again I was being utterly sarcastic.

What you say is true, although as I pointed out I think a more coherent
way to view it is that the physical coin does remain part of the money
supply, and the note itself merely represents that coin in trade.
Thus, the note does not in itself add anything to the money supply.

But no matter how you view it, you do get the same total number, yes.

Robert B.Z. wrote:

If JP chose to use the e-gold to buy TGC shares, then that part of the
portion would indeed be activated and we would suddenly be looking at
the
perceived inflationary tendencies I ahve been talking about for three
days
now. ...

John wrote:

Before JP bought the share, both the TGC share and the e-gold existed.
He
bought the share with e-gold, the ownership of these two things changed
hands. How is this inflationary?

Please recall that Robert wrote the above screed. As JP suggests,
Robert is a phenomenally clever and enterprising fellow but entirely,
delightfully, mad! :-)

I agree that the mere change of ownership of two things is not in
itself inflationary in any sense of the word.

I have conceded that the act of ISSUING shares might prove
inflationary, to the extent that those shares are considered to be
money. However, I still maintain that it is unlikely that those
shares will be as liquid in trade as purely monetary gold itself.

-- Patrick

[e-gold-list] Re: How good is gold?

2003-10-31 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Friday, October 31, 2003, at 04:55 AM, Danny Van den Berghe wrote:

If we compare gold with land, point by point:

Decay:  gold: no   land: no
Limited supply: gold: limited , although still mining an extra 2% per 
annum
land: obviously limited. Some categories of 
land are
actually getting scarcer (ex. forests)
Productive:  gold : no   land: YES


Good analysis, but you omitted the following points:

Portable:  gold: yes   land: no
Easy to conceal:  gold: yes   land: no
Easily divisible:  gold: yes   land: no
Useful in certain industrial applications:  gold: yes   land: no
Very high ratio of value to physical size:  gold: yes   land: no

Conclusion: land is better than gold
There is no need for categorical assertions of superiority like this.  
That's like saying chain saws are better than surgical scalpels.

Land is good in some ways; gold is good in others.  There is no need to 
choose one as some kind of absolutely superior standard of value.  
They're both valuable.

The same kind of consideration applies to everything else in life, even 
computer programming languages.

-- Patrick

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: e-gold for stocks

2003-10-31 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Friday, October 31, 2003, at 12:35 PM, Danny Van den Berghe wrote:

It's not a problem even if you take it to the absurd extreme. Assume
everybody in the world keeps all of their money in any form sitting
idle under a mattress. ...
That is not correct.
...
These Bill Gates' may be perfectly satisfied, but alongside them it
may be
full of people having all kinds of needs but no gold to pay for
anything.
The gold they need is in Bill's vault , and he is perfectly satisfied,
so
not spending it.

Note that I said all of their money in ANY form. I did not specify
gold.

If all the gold in the world ends up in personal vaults and sits there
idle in every way for 200 years, everyone else in the world will still
find a way to function just fine. They'll trade using whatever they
find convenient and suitable.

And during those 200 years, all of that gold in those vaults will
accomplish exactly nothing for its owners. If the owners are OK with
that, then so am I.

Clearly this situation is absurd and will not happen. Everybody has
desires and needs and they WILL use money of one form or another to
satisfy them. There is no problem to solve here, Danny.

The whole idea of savings harming the economy is ridiculous. If you
save some money instead of buying something with it, it just means
you're SATISFIED.
It can also mean you are pessimistic, miserly,...
Which in this system with strictly fixed money supply actually works to
become a self fulfilling prophecy.

Um, if people produce more than they consume, then they have funds to
see them through a rainy day or retirement, and they have funds to
invest so they can earn a reward for putting their savings at risk.

That is a very good thing.

You just want to pump up the money supply so that savings will
constantly erode in value, thus forcing people to invest when and where
they otherwise might not invest. God forbid the money should just sit
there.

Without all you social engineers running things, no doubt the entire
world would just grind to a halt.

-- Patrick

[e-gold-list] Re: e-gold for stocks

2003-10-31 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Friday, October 31, 2003, at 04:19 PM, Cambist.net wrote:

You just want to pump up the money supply so that savings will
constantly erode in value, thus forcing people to invest when and 
where
they otherwise might not invest.  God forbid the money should just 
sit
there.


That's why we need to take Keynes' advice and stamp expiration dates on
money.


I briefly heard about that one.

What, is it hot potato style, or like musical chairs?  Last sucker 
left holding the bag at midnight loses it all?

-- Patrick

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: e-gold for stocks

2003-10-30 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Thursday, October 30, 2003, at 11:38 AM, Robert B.Z. wrote:

Patrick,

Just one item: Inflation isn't the same as rising prices.
Not every inflation results in higher prices and higher prices are not
always caused by inflation.

Right, I'm actually well aware of this Austrian concept, where
inflation is simply defined as an increase in the money supply. Any
general level of price increase CAUSED by inflation is another story.

That is why I TRIED to refer to inflationary effects or price
increases -- in other words, things that may result from inflation
itself, which is just a simple increase in the money supply. I may not
have stuck to the right terminology as religiously as I intended,
though.

To be clear, the whole discussion has centered on (1) How we might get
an increase in the money supply and (2) What corrosive effects we might
suffer from that increase in the money supply.

I am simply asserting that if you have a bunch of assets that
constitute a money supply, then issuing notes (warehouse receipts)
redeemable for those assets does not double that money supply.

Therefore, that scenario would not be inflation in the pure Austrian
monetary sense. It would also not cause any inflation in the
popular, inaccurate, misguided, CNN mass media sense of price
increases.

Now, you MIGHT argue that creating a NOTE for an asset might make it
much easier to trade that asset, and that in itself might result in
some general price increases. But those price increases, if they turn
out to exist, would NOT be due to monetary inflation, but rather to
some sort of effect related to monetary velocity. I do not know of any
such effect, but in any case that is not what we have been discussing
up until now. People on this list have been asserting that warehouse
receipts cause an increase in the MONEY SUPPLY, and that is what I am
challenging.

Having an increase in the money supply with stagnant supply of goods
and
services only leads to higher prices when merchants charge more and
people
pay more.
If you are talking about real increases in the money supply from share
issuance or fractional reserve lending, then yes, that is possible.
But warehouse receipts are an entirely different animal. If you want
to argue that warehouse receipts serve to increase the velocity of
money and that in itself causes higher prices, then fine, argue away
and provide the URL links to the relevant articles at http://mises.org
(:-). But that is a separate topic -- it is not an example of monetary
inflation.

Dang, now I gotta respond to Danny real quick, then get back to work
for a while.

-- Patrick

[e-gold-list] Re: e-gold for stocks

2003-10-30 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Thursday, October 30, 2003, at 08:39 AM, Danny Van den Berghe wrote:

The same could be said about dollar bills sitting in a matress in
India.
As long as they are in the matress, they are not in fact part of the
money
supply.
These dollars could sit in the matress for 20 years and never
facilitate any
exchange of goods during that period.
That is quite true, although there still may be a meaningful
distinction to make here. The money in the mattress MAY be spent, but
the gold bar in e-gold's vault contractually MUST NOT be spent (apart
from the digital grams which represent it).

So when tallying up the money supply, I would not count both a gold
coin in a vault AND a paper note redeemable for that coin. I can think
of two intuitive, perhaps inexact ways of explaining why this is so:

1. The paper note is merely a symbol which represents the coin itself.
The coin is the real asset.

2. The paper note MAY be spent in trade, but the coin itself MAY NOT
be used in trade.

I don't know if either of these is a better way of viewing it, or they
are equivalent, or there is some other better way of viewing it. But I
think there is a meaningful, well-defined distinction that can be made
between a gold coin sitting in someone's mattress versus a gold coin
sitting in a vault for the purpose of redeeming a paper note.

So, although I may not be capable of explaining this distinction
exactly and clearly (surely economists have covered this somewhere), I
still think the distinction is quite real and everybody knows exactly
what I am talking about.

... (snip Bill Gates sitting on heap of idle gold example)
So, in a system like this , with a limited money supply (gold), saving
becomes counterproductive because it decreases the availabe money
supply
causing economic decline.
How can this problem be solved?

It's not a problem even if you take it to the absurd extreme. Assume
everybody in the world keeps all of their money in any form sitting
idle under a mattress. They do this for 20 years, and nobody spends a
thing. Sounds like a disaster, right? Terrible economy, totally
stagnant, absolute depression.

Not at all! It just means that everybody in the world is perfectly
satisfied and has no need of anything.

Obviously this is ridiculous and impossible -- in fact, living humans
will always have needs and desires that can only be satisfied by
trading with other humans. Savings are never saved forever, they are
always used for some purpose eventually. It may take 5 years, 10
years, 100 years, or 1000 years, but all savings are eventually spent
on something.

The whole idea of savings harming the economy is ridiculous. If you
save some money instead of buying something with it, it just means
you're SATISFIED. It doesn't mean you're failing to do your part to
help the economy along. Nobody is obligated to buy new clothes,
expensive dinners, cable TV, or stereo equipment just because Oh my
God -- the GDP numbers are looking terrible! If you don't need or
want something, then don't buy it. If nobody is buying what you're
selling, then sell something else.

This whole frantic idea of pumping up the economy is just crazy --
all you have to do is get the hell out of the way and let people trade
freely to satisfy their needs and desires. If their needs and desires
fluctuate over time, then so be it. That's what advertising and
marketing are for. If you want to sell Cadillacs, just show some
flashy images and play a Led Zeppelin riff.

People will always buy stuff if you just get the hell out of their
way, get your hands off their paychecks, keep your rules off their
affairs, stop adulterating the money, and stop trying to control every
stinking little thing that happens.

whew, back to work!

-- Patrick

[e-gold-list] Re: e-gold for stocks

2003-10-30 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Thursday, October 30, 2003, at 12:23 PM, Patrick Chkoreff wrote:

I don't know if either of these is a better way of viewing it, or they 
are equivalent, or there is some other better way of viewing it.  But 
I think there is a meaningful, well-defined distinction that can be 
made between a gold coin sitting in someone's mattress versus a gold 
coin sitting in a vault for the purpose of redeeming a paper note.
On second thought, I think the most coherent way to view it is that 
BOTH of these gold coins are in fact part of the money supply, and 
that the paper note merely represents one of the gold coins in trade.  
The paper note itself is thus not counted as part of the money supply 
independent of the underlying asset it represents.  In computer 
programming terms, the paper note is merely a pointer to the gold 
coin.

So, a gold bar in e-gold's vault IS part of the money supply.  The 
12000 e-gold grams merely represent that bar in trade.  The 12000 1mdc 
grams merely represent those e-gold grams in trade.  It's just 
double-indirection -- the pointers don't count the same way as the real 
asset itself.

-- Patrick

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: e-gold for stocks

2003-10-30 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Thursday, October 30, 2003, at 12:26 PM, SnowDog wrote:

So when tallying up the money supply, I would not count both a gold
coin in a vault AND a paper note redeemable for that coin.
That's the difference between M1 and M2 isn't it?
I don't see the analogy with warehouse receipts.  M1 itself is a 
mish-mash created by printing presses and fractional reserve lending; 
M2 is an additional mish-mash involving short-term money market 
investments of the aforementioned mish-mash.

Please explain the analogy with warehouse receipts.  Is there ANYTHING 
in the dollar-based modern banking world that functions as a true 
warehouse receipt?  Even a long-term CD is not a warehouse receipt, not 
by any stretch of the imagination.  As far as I can tell, everything at 
all times and all places involves the leveraged lending or investment 
of deposited assets.  Which is why they call it a deposit and not a 
bailment.

Please explain.

-- Patrick

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.

[e-gold-list] e-gold for stocks

2003-10-30 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Thursday, October 30, 2003, at 02:35 PM, SnowDog wrote:

I wasn't making such a detailed observation. I am simply pointing out
that
there are several definitions for 'money', each of which has use. ...

Likewise, would you ever have a
reason to include only notes redeemable for the gold? Again, the
answer is
'yes', if you were trying to find total money in circulation, since the
notes circulate as money, too.

Sure, I can see how you might want to measure different things for
different purposes. But I think if I wanted to measure the total
purchasing power in the digital gold economy, I might start by
defining it as follows: the total number of gold grams that would be
spent if everyone suddenly and simultaneously spent every single
digital gold asset they owned.

So for example, each e-gold, Goldmoney, e-bullion, Pecunix, and 1mdc
account holder simultaneously spends every single gram in his account
that he owns.

The first thing to note is that the e-gold grams residing in the 1mdc
reserve account would NOT be spent in this scenario. That is because I
stipulated that each account holder only spends the grams that he
himself owns. The individual(s) holding the 1mdc reserve accounts do
not own the e-gold grams in those accounts, so they do not spend them.

Therefore, the total number of grams spent in the total simultaneous
spending binge is precisely the total of grams in the e-gold,
Goldmoney, e-bullion, and Pecunix systems. The 1mdc grams are not
included in this total. Or to look at it another way, the 1mdc grams
ARE included in the total, but the e-gold grams in the 1mdc reserve are
NOT. Same thing because either way you get the same total number of
grams spent.

Now, to follow Robert's point, you might consider adding in something
to represent the value in grams of all the TGC shares, on the grounds
that they too can function as liquid, current money. TGC shares WOULD
represent an additional component to the total number of grams traded
in an all-out spending binge. That is because both the grams paid for
those shares, and the shares themselves, can both be spent by their
respective owners: TGC itself in the former case, and TGC shareholders
in the latter case.

Of course, the question of who owns the gold grams paid for TGC
shares is a bit subtle -- certainly TGC management controls those grams
and can spend them as they see fit, but TGC shares do represent
shareholder equity in the company, which includes all assets including
the cash raised in the IPO.

But regardless of any such hair-splitting, both the cash raised in the
IPO and the TGC shares themselves may simultaneously be spent with no
violation of contract. So TGC shares, unlike 1mdc grams, can indeed be
viewed as an increase in the money supply.

If anyone started a gold fractional reserve lending system, accepting
for example a deposit of 10 grams and making loans of 100 grams as
simple bookkeeping entries in accounts, and if people were damn fool
enough to trade in those account balances as if they were real grams,
then we would have to count those in our assessment of the money
supply as well. I mean, if 100 grams of fractional gold could be
spent about as easily and powerfully as 100 grams of e-gold, then I
guess you'd have to include the fractional gold.

[Editorial comment: Goodness, how in the heck did anyone ever get
snookered into this fractional reserve nonsense anyway?!!! Isn't it
sort of blatantly ridiculous just on the face of it? I think it may be
even more ridiculous (and harmful) than issuing fiat paper tokens
themselves!]

I seem it as similar to the difference between M1 and M2. M1 is the
total
amount of cash circulating in society and M2 includes other types of
liquid
assets like checking account balances, which are directly convertable
to
cash. Monitoring the size and growth of each are valuable to
economists.
Not to quibble, SnowDog, but M1 itself includes both the cash AND the
checking account balances. To get M2, you have to add in money market,
small time deposits, and savings deposits.

I guess the idea is that cash and checking account balances are pretty
much equally liquid, and the extra components in M2 are clearly less
liquid.

-- Patrick

[e-gold-list] Re: Free e-gold or Pecunix exchange!

2003-10-30 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Thursday, October 30, 2003, at 03:43 PM, Sidd wrote:

Open2exchange is accepting exchanges from GoldMoney or e-bullion to
either e-gold or Pecunix at NO COMMISSION for a limited time.
In other words, you can do a straight swap, instantly...

http://open2exchange.com/buy.sell...c2c

Try it now, before the offer ends!


The swap is so instantaneously fast it makes your head spin.  The 
confirmation emails will be on your POP server before you even get a 
chance to press your Check mail button.

Also, where in the heck is all the e-bullion these days?  Are 
exchangers experiencing some kind of permanent shortage of e-bullion?  
I know I personally am getting low, but it seems like it's nowhere to 
be found!

-- Patrick

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: e-gold for stocks

2003-10-29 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Tuesday, October 28, 2003, at 07:41 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

it is true that things like stocks, bank accounts, 1mdc-like things 
(derivatives of money), and any and all financial instruments EXPAND 
THE MONEY SUPPLY.  Very few people know this, but it's true.


Your point is well taken, but you made one small mistake there, JP.  
1mdc does NOT expand the money supply in any way.

-- Patrick

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: e-gold for stocks

2003-10-29 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Wednesday, October 29, 2003, at 11:38 AM, Robert B.Z. wrote:

Your point is well taken, but you made one small mistake there, JP.
1mdc does NOT expand the money supply in any way.
-- Patrick
In a way it actually does. Much in the same way a bank deposit or
holding
a plug type=sales balance in a CF$ customer account /plug does.

No, it does not behave at all like a bank deposit. Bank deposits are
held for the purpose of fractional reserve lending, and that is what
causes an increase in the amount of currency in circulation. 1mdc
reserves are held in a completely idle status, and are not loaned out
or used in circulation in any way whatsoever.

You see, when you 'deposit' your e-gold into the 1MDC account, and your
1MDC account is credited, your e-gold is still there as well. When you
then use your 1MDC account to pay for a purchase to another 1MDC
account
you are using FastGrams, rather than e-gold. While your FastGrams
change
hands, the e-gold doesn't.

Hence, theoretically if all e-gold was depositted with 1MDC, then the
money supply would double.

No it wouldn't, not in any meaningful way. Sure, anyone can easily add
the number of 1mdc grams to the number of e-gold grams held in the 1mdc
reserve, but then you are just counting the same asset twice.

The e-gold grams held in the 1mdc reserve are, quite simply, not in
circulation anymore. They are completely idle assets, good only for
one purpose: to redeem 1mdc grams. Upon redemption, the 1mdc grams
cease to exist and the e-gold grams are once again released from their
cage and allowed to circulate as money again.

Although in this particular case there is the 1MDC caveat that the
e-gold
shall never leave the 1MDC e-gold account, and hence halve [sic: half]
of the doubled
money supply would not circulate.
The half that doesn't circulate does not function as part of the money
supply.

Another analogy might help. If you give me a gold coin for safe
keeping and in exchange I give you a gold certificate redeemable for
that coin, there is no change in the money supply. The gold coin sits
in the vault collecting dust and does not serve any active function as
circulating money. In short, the gold coin does not go out chasing
goods. Only the gold certificate does that. If someone redeems the
gold certificate for the coin, then I must either destroy the
certificate or permanently lock it away somewhere, only to reuse it if
someone bails in another coin.

-- Patrick

[e-gold-list] Re: e-gold for stocks

2003-10-29 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Wednesday, October 29, 2003, at 03:27 PM,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Your point is well taken, but you made one small mistake there, JP.
1mdc does NOT expand the money supply in any way.
I'd have to think about that onetricky!!

(We're used to thinking about fractional reserve type banking -- ...

but does egold expand the gold available? ...
All I know is that e-gold claims that if I bail a gold bar into the
e-gold system, that gold bar sits in a vault and is not used to make a
loan or purchase of any kind. Thus, the gold bar itself no longer
functions as money except in the form of the e-gold grams representing
it, and therefore there is no increase in the money supply.

Does 1mdc expand the egold available?)
All I know is that 1mdc claims that if I bail an e-gold gram into the
1mdc system, that e-gold gram sits in an account and is not used to
make a loan or purchase of any kind. Thus, the e-gold gram itself no
longer functions as money except in the form of the 1mdc gram
representing it, and therefore there is no increase in the money supply.

Assuming that both claims are valid and perfectly reliable, neither of
these scenarios increases the amount of money available for use in
trade.

I assume your questions refer to some motivational effect, where the
existence of a system prompts more people to find assets to bail into
that system, or something along those lines, am I right?

-- Patrick

[e-gold-list] Re: What is TGC Share?

2003-10-28 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Monday, October 27, 2003, at 02:10 PM, Robert B.Z. wrote:

1,000 shares are sold, goldslots.dom outexchanges the 1,000 ounzes to
pay
some new software it bought. People now hold 1,000oz worth of shares,
there are 1,000oz in circulation, do you see where I'm heading here?
In theory the number of ounzes in circulation has just doubled. People
hold their shares believing that they are 'good as gold', but in order
to
trade all shares one would need to control all 1,000oz in circulation.

The 1000 shares won't be NEARLY as liquid in circulation as you suggest
here, Robert.

Sure, I suppose people could buy 1000 shares for 1000 oz of gold, and
then both the gold AND the shares would circulate equally as money --
but I don't think it can or will happen. The shares will not be nearly
as liquid as gold itself as a medium of exchange. Shares will always
carry investment risk and thus cannot be as liquid as gold itself. So
you won't see an inflationary effect.

Besides, even if I could spend a TGC share directly, buying for example
some electronics equipment with it, I don't see that as a problem in
any sense -- the guy selling the equipment just happened to want a TGC
share more than he wanted to keep the equipment. If that's
inflationary, then so be it. Sure, maybe the next guy wanting to buy
some equipment wants to pay in straight gold but finds that prices have
gone up. That's just tough.

And who in the world is holding a TGC share thinking that it is as
good as gold? There is no sense in which a TGC sharerepresents 100
grams of gold. Each share simply has a prevailing market price in
terms of gold, the same way a pound of peaches has a market price in
terms of dollars.

Anyone who thinks a TGC share is redeemable for gold, or good as
gold, is laboring under a mistaken assumption and needs to unload all
of their shares at 50g a piece immediately! :-)

And that is where one of the problems are when an exchange allows only
one
currency to be used for trade. The inherent problem would be removed,
if
people could swap 'bearer' shares for anything they want, of course.
But
hey, that means we just created an infaltionary fiat currency that
started
out as having a gold base and suddenly there is more paper than gold...
But of course we know there is NO gold base to TGC shares. The
shares merely have a going price that is stated in gold. And very few
people are going to accept TGC shares directly in trade for goods and
services. No investment instrument is going to be as liquid as money
itself.

-- Patrick

[e-gold-list] Re: e-gold for stocks

2003-10-28 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Tuesday, October 28, 2003, at 05:20 PM, Robert B.Z. wrote:

Well Jim, you see, we have borrowed against our shares to buy more
shares
to borrow against and we then traded some gold puts and ended up with
almost twice the fiat we had started with and get to keep a cut of the
dividends as well.
We then bought e-gold from our own subsidiary at no surcharge, stored
at
1MDC and threw a party from the profits.

Just imagine what we could do if there were 20 companies listed and a
bit
more of activity.

See, now that's what I call a real player right there -- Robert can
make real money running schemes that I can barely fathom! :-)

We need 20 companies listed so that NOTHING can hold Robert back from
his total economic conquest!

...
I suppose time will tell, but I can almost see people exchanging shares
instead of e-gold because at times it's so darn difficult to get
e-gold.
Robert is so wild and ahead of the curve that I might be inclined to
believe this.

And I am basing this on experience as well. We were actually offered 2
TGC
share as payment for something...
There ya go. Actually, on second thought I have heard of another case
of this happening, so maybe it's not going to be as rare as I thought.
I still can't imagine the shares being as liquid as e-gold, but if you
can't GET e-gold in the first place, well

There is just not enough money to go around

Obviously somebody needs to step up and issue some private fiat tokens.
If you give me 20% of the initial issue I promise to kick back 50% of
anything I get for them. Yeah baby, FIAT is where the action is!!!

Anybody got any Boggs bills for sale? I'll pay you private fiat tokens
for them.

-- Patrick

[e-gold-list] Re: e-gold for stocks

2003-10-28 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Tuesday, October 28, 2003, at 06:10 PM, Robert B.Z. wrote:

I actually think you got exactly where I was going with this, picked
it up
and took it to it's logic conclusion. And it took you only a few lines,
too.
Once people start using shares as a means to trade other stuff, we
have a
fiat economy alongside the e-gold system.

I wonder why people don't do this more often with, say, Microsoft
shares. Of course, we know that companies quite often buy other entire
companies for stock only and no cash, so I guess in a way it happens
fairly often. I don't think many people pay for labor or web hosting
in Microsoft shares, though.

Maybe this will happen with TGC shares more often simply because people
in the gold economy are pretty radical, innovative, early adopters to
begin with, just by their very nature.

It's a bit as if someone issued dollar bills that are redeemable for
gold
by the highest bidder where the issuer pays you a tiny amount of gold
for
not redeeming the bill and promises not to issue more bills than value
of
their undisclosed assets. From that perspective it already sounds like
a
fiat currency (minus the promise bit), innit?
Sounds kind of like a stock, too. As I told George once, I don't
consider the issuance of stock to be a good example of how money should
work. However, I also said that none of these funky shenanigans
bothers me in the least if it's voluntary. So bring on the funky
shenanigans. At the very least I can get a good laugh and decline to
participate.

You bring up some fun things to consider, Robert!

-- Patrick

[e-gold-list] Re: What is TGC Share?

2003-10-27 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Monday, October 27, 2003, at 12:42 AM, Robert B.Z. wrote:

Has it appeared to anyone that we are essentially turning our gold into
paper when we invest in stocks? Just wondering.
I know, people will now argue that shares are traded in gold and
exchangeable only for gold and that therefore the share 'represent'
gold.
By the same token, I'd argue that it is essentially a promissary note
twice removed from gold. And that makes it paper - digital paper if you
will.
But of course, Robert, that is the nature of any investment. You
invest capital and get a piece of paper in return. That's the nature
of stocks, loans, Islamic installment payment plans, whatever. The
value of the paper is the value of the promise written on it.

Are you suggesting we should just hold onto any gold that we don't
spend for immediate needs like food, water, shelter, and clothing? You
really want all gold not used for immediate consumption to sit around
collecting dust in vaults or just take up disk space in digital
accounts?

As Goto Dengo says in Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon, gold is merely
the CORPSE of wealth. True wealth is action, happiness, love, fun,
health, well-being -- things which are facilitated by gold, not
embodied in it.

[e-gold-list] TGC IPO Now Clear!

2003-10-24 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

The TGC IPO shares are now all sold.  The secondary market is wide open 
now.

https://www.dbourse.com/guests/

-- Patrick

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: Casino Technology/Algorithms

2003-10-24 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Friday, October 24, 2003, at 10:08 PM, Adam Selene wrote:

I think the card-holder is called a shoe (for some reason)
Duh, my bad. Although anyone know the reason??


Casino dealers shuffle two to six packs of cards together and puts them 
into a device which ensures that only the top card can be dealt.  The 
device looks like a shoe, for want of a better analogy.


but most online casinos use just one deck and can shuffle
instantly on each hand, so counting isn't much of an issue
Ah yes, I missed that obvious configuration. That's better than
an infinite shoe, given you won't end up with weird things like
two Jacks of Spades.
Ah, but you do end up with weird things like that.  A six-pack shoe 
will indeed have six Jacks of Spades.


Although I do believe it might be a feature to actually offer
a set number of shoes without the shuffle every hand to entice
those that think they have some strategy.
Yes, it is a feature and that's exactly what they do.

But what I'm really interested in is figuring out how to program
digital slot machines. Card games are simple.
Fascinating assertion.

-- Patrick

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: A Free Zone in Alabama

2003-10-23 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Thursday, October 23, 2003, at 01:50 PM, Ben Legume wrote:

Firstly, what sort of government relies on a
ruling from another government's officials to
give it legitimacy? That is the behaviour of a
principality, protectorate or colony.


But Ben, let's look at the wording of the announcement from Stephen 
Gordon at Libertarian Opportunities:

Mr. Johnson (a party member) recently won a ruling from Jefferson
County Probate Judge Bolin that provided him with the legal authority
to designate the area to have borders, and to function as a defacto-
government, albeit an entirely voluntary one. The idea of a
voluntary government should be very appealing to those of a
Libertarian or small government bent.


Perhaps Stephen should have said that the ruling from Judge Bolin 
merely recognized Mr. Johnson's already existing legal authority, 
instead of providing that authority.  But of course that all depends 
on how Judge Bolin worded his ruling.  At this point, you'll take what 
you can get and be thankful, eh?  :-)  Don't bite the hand that doesn't 
smite you.  :-)


Secondly, why would any true Libertarian want
to establish yet another government? You can
see what always happens to them eventually...
It appears to me that Mr. Johnson uses the term voluntary government 
to mean that the individuals in that area will govern their affairs 
through purely voluntary cooperation, including all basic services.  
That business incubator project sounds fine as long as it is private 
funds seeking private opportunities:  i.e. some deep pockets in the 
Free Zone getting together and investing some of their own working 
capital to get projects started.

It would be cool if some of the businesses in the Free Zone would 
accept payment of invoices in e-gold.  Of course, what they use as 
money is entirely their business, but one might expect that the kind of 
people setting up shop in such a Free Zone might be a bit more attuned 
and amenable to better monetary options.

-- Patrick

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: Goldbarter Post

2003-10-21 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Tuesday, October 21, 2003, at 04:41 AM, Phil Watson wrote:

For the cigar aficionados in the group...

I have posted a box of Cuban cigars - Montecristo #2
on goldbarter
ellsmoke


Cool!

-- Patrick

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: question on coins

2003-10-21 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Tuesday, October 21, 2003, at 02:15 AM, Robert B.Z. wrote:

I do actually believe that coins are more expensive than paper notes
(to
mint, transport and store) but also more durable. However there is the
administrative part that allows you to simply weigh coins to determine
the
number of coins in a batch, which beats having to sort 5 cent bills and
quarter-dollar bank notes :o)

Yes, as I recall it costs the Federal Reserve about 3.5 cents to
produce a paper token. So at the very least they might produce a paper
nickel and still make a 1.5 cent profit per item, but as Robert
correctly points out, the paper nickels would wear out very quickly and
the Fed would be obligated to replace them with new paper, exactly as
they do now for the higher denominations (shredding the old worn out
stuff and printing new replacements). Just one turnover of a paper
nickel would wipe out their entire profit and put them in the loss
column.

The paper nickel would wear out after just a few years, while a metal
nickel can stick around for many decades. I frequently see 20 - 30
year old nickels, dimes, and quarters in circulation (can you even
_imagine_ how many times those have been spent!?). The only reason you
don't see 40 year old dimes and quarters is that those were made of
silver and therefore nobody is foolish enough to spend them anymore.

-- Patrick

[e-gold-list] The Nature of Value

2003-10-17 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

A good essay on the nature of economic value.

http://mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1349

Here are some excerpts:

By Gene Callahan

[Posted October 17, 2003]

Somewhat ironically, it was one of the greatest philosophers who has
ever lived, Aristotle, who was perhaps most responsible for steering
the discipline of economics down a false trail. Since the time that he
expounded his views, economics has been struggling to rid itself of
Aristotle's first, false step.

...

Menger's breakthrough insight was to realize that [v]alue is nothing
inherent in goods, no property of them, but merely the importance that
we first attribute to the satisfaction of our needs... and in
consequence carry over to economic goods as the causes of the
satisfaction of our needs. (Principles of Economics)

In other words, value is the name of an attitude or disposition that a
particular person adopts toward a good: he chooses to value it.
Although Menger set economics on the path to a correct theory of value
in 1871, ancient errors die hard. We can still find many erroneous
conceptions of value in contemporary discussions of economic issues.

For example, it is quite common to refer to money (or gold, or
financial assets) as a store of value. But an attitude cannot be
stored! You cannot pour some of your attitude towards goods into a bar
of gold, put it in a vault, and hope it keeps. You can, of course,
store the gold bar. And you will certainly hope that when you decide to
take it from the vault and sell it, that others will choose to value it
as well. But only the gold was stored.

Money is also referred to as a measure of value. But if, following
Menger, we regard valuing as an attitude people take towards things,
then money certainly cannot measure value, since money itself is simply
another thing that people choose to value (or not). Rather than
measuring the value of other goods and services, money itself is
valued by human actors based on its adequacy as a commonly accepted
medium of exchange.

Another common, troublesome phrase claims that in free markets, people
trade value for value. But if we realize that value names an attitude
or disposition, we see that the phrase is misleading. I can trade some
gold that I value with you for a sheep you value. If such a trade takes
place, you must also value my gold and I your sheep. In fact, you must
value my gold more than you value your sheep, and I must value your
sheep more than I value my gold.

When we exchange these goods, my attitude toward the gold does not
transfer to you with the gold, nor does your attitude toward the sheep
become mine. If that occurred, we would wind up immediately trading
them back again, since before the first trade you valued the gold I was
offering more than the sheep, and I valued the sheep you offered more
than the gold I made available.

...

[e-gold-list] Economic Incentives

2003-10-15 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Tuesday, October 14, 2003, at 01:59 AM, Khurram Khan wrote:

... Let's take roads for example. If
it is not done through the government, usually, people will not build
roads because everybody will be waiting for someone else to build it.
Yes! Definitely! That is exactly how it should be. Those with an
economic incentive to build roads should build roads, and those with no
economic incentive to build roads should do something else.

And once some people do get together to build a road, they will try to
limit access to that road to only people that paid for its
construction.
Nonsense! That's like saying those who build a grocery store will only
let themselves shop there. The economic incentives to build roads
abound!

Trucking companies like to have routes to deliver goods. (It's like
building railroads.)

Oil companies like to sell gasoline to people driving on roads,
including truckers and ordinary motorists.

Local businesses like to have roads in front of their shops. Minimizes
the walk for their customers.

Homeowners like to have roads in front of their houses. Mighty
inconvenient otherwise. In this case, it may very well be that the
homeowners will restrict access to their roads somewhat, only allowing
known friends, family, and service and delivery men in. This is as it
should be.

And yes, some companies will find it effective to set up toll access
roads.

And finally, but perhaps most importantly, many roads will never be
built because there is no point in doing so.

The possibilities abound! Free your mind! History is replete with
examples of things that supposedly couldn't be done any other way, or
even at all. People once thought you couldn't make money producing
cotton unless you owned slaves. Enlightenment and technology cure us
of such primitive barbaric notions.

This would causes hundreds of toll booths to go up, and encourage
construction of inefficient detours. Contrary to what has been said,
road construction would not be more efficient in the free-market
because of the lack of Central planning among other things.
There won't be hundreds of toll booths. Toll booths would be
inefficient and clumsy for most roads and you know it. You're setting
up a straw man argument here. For the most part, toll booths will only
be useful for certain reasonably long hauls and for bridges. Even in
these cases technology can speed the toll paying process -- for
example, on our local Georgia 400 you can get a transponder and just
drive through the toll booth at full speed.

I have now given four examples of possible economic motives to build
roads besides tolls. I also pointed out that many of the roads we now
have are economically pointless and wasteful, and thus needlessly
destructive of the environment. Without these wasteful roads,
telecommuting might have advanced years ago far beyond its present
state. Also, as Jim pointed out, aviation options might be more
abundant.

I am in favor of more freedom, less waste of time and money, less
carnage, and prettier scenery. Why aren't you? (A completely cheap
shot, I know, I just couldn't resist. :-)

... lack of Central planning ...
Somebody help me, I'm gagging over here on this Leninist pablum.

Besides, there is PLENTY of central planning in a free market. The
executives and directors of our major grocery store chains are engaged
in central planning all the time:

- Determining the best and most opportunistic ways to expand their
franchise into new territories.

- Doing enormous market research to find out mind-boggling detailed
information like what's the crispiest cereal, who produces the best
minute-rice, or what's the best canned tuna (it's Bumblebee, not
Chicken of the Sea, by the way -- ask any mermaid you happen to see).

- Determining the best pricing strategies and corporate practices among
the franchises.

These executive planners do a MUCH better job than any Ten Bureaucrats
with absolutely no personal stake in the matter dictating what their
tiny brains with limited perception have decided is the best policy.

Central planning? It's bad enough when pointy-haired bosses do it, but
by bureaucrats?!! The horror ... the horror.

[e-gold-list] Economic Incentives

2003-10-15 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Tuesday, October 14, 2003, at 01:59 AM, Khurram Khan wrote:

... I know I'm about to get a swarm of emails
saying You are F***ing wrong but oh-well.
Oh and by the way Khurram, you are not only wrong, you are Fudging 
wrong!

-- Patrick

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: Debit Cards

2003-10-15 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Wednesday, October 15, 2003, at 10:39 PM, Jim Davidson wrote:

Have you looked at the cards from
 http://freeluna.dreambuildersystems.com/
yet?
These look intriguing.

http://www.e-bullion.com/
I've had excellent results with these folks, and own
one of their cards.
Same here.  I liked the card so much I bought one for my Mom too.  I 
have both cards linked to my one e-bullion account.  Funding is quick 
and reliable, always by the next day if not sooner.  Inexpensive too, 
just $34.95 to buy the card and then practically nothing after that -- 
no monthly fees, and funding it with e-bullion costs only the small 
$0.25 spend fee.

-- Patrick

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.

[e-gold-list] RE: retailing the Moon

2003-10-14 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Tuesday, October 14, 2003, at 01:56 AM, Ian Green wrote:

When he goes there and asserts his claim, then I will give more
consideration to his claim, but not because of any powers of the land
office. Does that office derive its powers from a government that does
not exist?
Right, ownership of wild unclaimed territory must be based on staking a 
physical claim -- actually going there and setting up fences so to 
speak.  Other than that it's just people talking.  You've got to have 
some physical boundaries and preferably a way to enforce those 
boundaries.

Isn't that the way it's supposed to work, Jim?

Free Luna!

-- Patrick

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: Income tax

2003-10-14 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Tuesday, October 14, 2003, at 02:38 PM, Ian Green wrote:

... Unfortunately, there
remains a high amount of taxation on petrol. ...
Petrol taxes are closer to user fees than any other tax. The more
miles you drive, the more you pay for roads. So of all the despised
and dreaded taxes, petrol taxes are my favorite.

Nevertheless, I still don't think even petrol taxes are necessary. In
a completely free market many companies and individuals would have an
economic interest in building and maintaining roads: oil and trucking
companies primarily. I could easily see these companies singlehandedly
financing all the long-haul routes, completely doing away with the need
for a government-financed interstate highway system. People living in
subdivisions can finance their own local roads. Business owners on a
main strip can finance the local business routes, with terms built
right into the title deeds.

So even in a free market we would have nearly the equivalent of
gasoline taxes -- the oil companies would simply take some of the money
you pay at the pump and invest it in roads. But it would not be a tax
because no force is involved.

I could even see an individual oil company creating a large highway,
let's say Amoco Route 59, and installing Amoco gasoline stations
every twenty miles along it. Or a consortium of oil and trucking
companies could embark on join investments -- they all have a vested
interest in getting roads built to all the places people most want to
go.

As far as I can tell, taxes are a terribly inefficient and morally
objectionable blunt instrument for getting things done. There are far
better ways of doing things.

[e-gold-list] Re: The Myth of Insufficient Gold

2003-10-12 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Sunday, October 12, 2003, at 02:18 PM, FileMatrix wrote:

But in the United States, the thugs outlawed redeeming currency for
gold.
Patrick, why is this redeeming word so important? Can't you just say
you
*exchange* paper money for gold on the free market? ...
I understand what you have in mind here. Let us for a moment consider
a micro-economy of just three individuals: Alice, Bob, and Carol.

Alice gives Bob a note promising to pay one gold coin to the bearer on
demand. Bob buys something from Carol, paying with the note. Carol
accepts the note because Alice has an excellent reputation.

Now Alice announces that she will no longer honor the promise on the
note. At that point it is no longer a note, because a note is a
promise to pay a specific asset. Alice has withdrawn the promise. So
we'll call it a token.

But Carol doesn't worry. She cannot redeem the token for gold from
Alice, but she feels confident she can exchange the token for gold on
the free market. She approaches Bob and offers the token in exchange
for a gold coin. But Bob refuses the token because he has no
particular reason to accept it -- it's just a piece of paper, after all.

You might argue that Bob would accept the token if he could find
someone else, let's say David, who would trade him something for it.
But that extension of our micro-economy to a fourth individual
accomplishes nothing because there is no reason to assume David is any
more motivated to accept the token than Bob is.

You might argue that if you continue extending the economy (to
Elizabeth, Fred, George, et al) that Bob will eventually find someone
willing to accept the token in trade, perhaps George for example :-).
But I think (though cannot prove) that the probability of any one
individual accepting the token is so slim that it results in a
situation like one of those cellular automata configurations that comes
to a dead end.

But we can clearly see that this has worked in practice, so how? One
way is for Alice simply to decree that she will imprison anyone caught
possessing or trading in gold, and demand that anyone in possession of
her old note trade it in for a new unredeemable paper token. Another
way is for Alice to decree that Bob and Carol must pay regular tribute
to Alice in the form of Alice's new tokens, or be imprisoned.

If Alice's force is credible, either one of these methods will suffice
to get Alice's tokens accepted to some degree. Turns out the US did
both. Of course, taxes were already in place before the gold seizures
of 1933, but the requirement to pay taxes in the new tokens was enough
to make them valuable in trade right off the bat.

Having said all this, you may actually be correct that a system of fiat
tokens can in theory flourish in a completely free market without the
use of force. Though I don't think it could happen the way I
described, with Alice reneging on gold notes. That in itself would
destroy her reputation. Alice would have to start off with fiat tokens
directly.

We can only deal with the situation as we actually find it today. It
is legal to own gold and trade in gold, but the US still demands
tribute in fiat tokens. As goods and services, and notes payable in
goods and services, become widely liquid in direct trade, many people
may find that government-issued fiat tokens are useful for little more
than paying those tributes.

It is interesting to consider that process in the limit, as free market
instruments of various kinds (even fiat!) approach near perfect
liquidity in trade. I don't think government would like that.
Monopolists do not give up their monopolies lightly. But, we must
press on.

-- Patrick

[e-gold-list] Re: Islamic banking

2003-10-11 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Saturday, October 11, 2003, at 06:18 AM, Robert B.Z. wrote:

Don't you think if the maximum a bank could charge was 1% 
non-compounding
per month or 12% per annum - OR - transaction fees and service charges,
but NOT both, and if executives could not earn more that $120,000 
before
tax and incentives, that maybe, the world would be a better place?
The world is a better place when Robert B.Z. and everyone else minds 
his own business.  Good Lord, what is this constant fascination in the 
human race to regulate the lives and activities of others?  It's this 
constant parade of suggestions, like CEOs should only make this much, 
pro basketball players shouldn't make so much, people mopping floors 
must make at least this much.  Trying to make the world a better place 
is exactly what's making it such a tedious and nasty place.

-- Patrick

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: The Myth of Insufficient Gold

2003-10-11 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Saturday, October 11, 2003, at 10:27 AM, Danny Van den Berghe wrote:

Indeed, but making it independant from gold backing is not necessarily
done
by force.
It may have been done by force in the past, but that does not mean it
is the
only way.
Danny, in your 9-Oct post you described how In some places it [money]
somehow evolved from gold towards paper currency in a rather smooth
transition. I would like to hear about those places and times.
Because it sure was NOT the United States in 1933.

(And yes, George, I understand that the US is not the world. That's
why I'm asking about other places now.)

The people who manage a currency (which can be a private group or a
government), can simply announce a change in the 'terms of use'
effective a
certain date in the future. If the currency is operating in a free
market,
people have the possibility to redeem their currency for gold while
they
still can, or exchange them for another currency of their choice.
But in the United States, the thugs outlawed redeeming currency for
gold.

It would be like e-gold announcing a change in the terms of use,
stating that their digital units would no longer be redeemable for gold
-- RIGHT NOW. Furthermore, e-gold would threaten to put in prison
anyone they caught possessing gold.

Please forgive me for harping on the US in 1933, but you're the one
asserting that these transitions can (or have) occurred smoothly. I
would like to hear about these cases where an institution with
outstanding gold certificates declared that at a specific point in time
their certificates would no longer be redeemable for gold. I would
like to hear about how all the people took the news calmly, with some
of them redeeming for gold and some of them choosing NOT to (if you can
imagine that). And then, after the cutoff date occurred, the
institution kept on issuing unredeemable certificates which were then
circulated and accepted just as well as the old redeemable ones.

This sounds completely contrary to human nature, and I doubt if it has
ever happened or ever will. I believe that force is the only way to
pull it off. One thing I do know for certain: in the single biggest
case like this in the history of the world, force WAS necessary. So
where are these success stories, or how might they be possible even in
principle? Specifically, if you had a gold certificate you knew would
become unredeemable at a specific time, would you really hold onto it
past that time? Wouldn't you go ahead and redeem it for gold? And
wouldn't the threat of imprisonment be just about the only thing that
could prevent you from redeeming it for gold?

-- Patrick

[e-gold-list] Re: The Myth of Insufficient Gold

2003-10-10 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Friday, October 10, 2003, at 07:53 AM, Danny Van den Berghe wrote:

In fact we could as well say that the interest this person pays is in 
fact
rent he pays to use the item until it becomes his own at the end of the
contract.
Ah, now I have given you a great business idea how to offer consumer 
credit
in Malaysia without using the word interest.

And there is no question about compounding interest, because you only 
pay
rent (interest) on the portion of the item that is not yet paid for.
I bet Robert B.Z. could make this work.  Anyone who can bring that 
dairy cow time-arbitrage deal to fruition is one heck of an 
entrepreneur.

Thanks for an exceptionally civilized discussion.
You see it is possible to talk about things without calling each other 
a
thug as soon as there is a disagreement.
And with more fruitful results.
It seems that Jim defines thug as an individual who advocates or 
participates in the initiation of force against others.

-- Patrick

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: The Myth of Insufficient Gold

2003-10-10 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Friday, October 10, 2003, at 02:07 PM, Danny Van den Berghe wrote:

Yeah, but isn't publicly calling someone a thug (or any other
insulting
statement) already a case of initiation of force against a person, and
hence
the person who utters these words has declared himself a thug by his
own
definition?
(Dear Moderator: I promise to keep this on the subject of money.)

Danny:

No. Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never harm me.
Force and verbiage are two different things.

At least he could have cared to mention where I advocated use of force
against somebody or something...
Actually looking through your posts I see quite a bit of laissez-faire
attitude. I think our communication difficulties arise from a
fundamental disagreement on the nature of fiat systems. The advocates
of fiat systems flatly deny that brute force is necessary to float
those systems. For example, in a previous post you gave a chronology
of how a fiat system evolves, starting with gold and notes for gold,
but ultimately culminating with this:

And finally the curency was made independant from the gold backing.
What a sweet, passive, neutral way to portray an act of theft, fraud,
and extortion. The currency was made independent from gold backing
by a bunch of thugs telling the people to hand over their gold and gold
notes and accept fiat paper in return upon pain of imprisonment and
confiscation of property. Or at the very least, simply reneging on a
solemn promise.

I highly suggest reading today's article titled Monetary Policy and
the Free Market.

http://mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1341

It almost seems like the author has been reading the e-gold list
lately. Consider this excerpt:

Since paper currencies are the dominant type of money in our age,
there has been some speculation about the possibility of a free market
in paper money or electronic money. Yet not only is there no historical
evidence to support this possibility, but noncommodity monies have at
all times and places been creatures of the state.

In modern times, the state has introduced paper money by giving a
privileged note-issuing bank (the national Central Bank) the permission
to suspend the redemption of its notes. While the historical record
does not prove that there could be no noncommodity money on the free
market, Austrian economists have argued that money must be a commodity
by its nature.

As the author says, there has indeed been some speculation about the
possibility of a free market in paper money or electronic money.
Notably, right here on the e-gold list.

Note that in the second paragraph, the author states that the
introduction of paper money always took the form of a privileged group
gaining permission to suspend the redemption of its notes. Or as
Danny so blithely puts it: And finally the currency was made
independent of its gold backing.

So when Jim discusses a vicious thug who insists on imposing paper
money on these workers, he is referring to a paper money system that
was originally imposed on the people by force and is now maintained by
force. From what I can tell you would disapprove of that kind of force
but you also deny that it exists in the first place. So as they say in
Cool Hand Luke: What we've got here is failure to communicate.

At this point in history it's all a matter of degree. Many of us,
including fiat advocates themselves, are evolving toward more trade in
hard money and less in fiat tokens. This works to erode the utility of
fiat tokens, though imperceptibly at first. But if the physics are
just right, this effect could easily compound far beyond anybody's
ability to predict at this point.

-- Patrick

[e-gold-list] Re: The Myth of Insufficient Gold

2003-10-09 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Thursday, October 9, 2003, at 03:01 AM, Robert B.Z. wrote:

I actually enjoy the objections of both Patrick and Frank because they
are
contructive and make sense.

Here we go: Patrick, if you lend someone a piece of gold and get the
piece
bank plus a smaller one, you won't be hauled to prison - BUT - might be
forced to donate the smaller piece to a charity fund.
And when I say no, I will not give the smaller piece to a charity fund,
the sheriff comes and takes me to prison. If I resist, he shoots me.
I love the way people say you won't be hauled to prison but forget to
mention the condition if you cooperate. :-)

What two adults do among themselves is up to them, unless one of them
gets
something for nothing. ...
And then when the sheriff finishes subduing me one way or the other, he
takes the smaller piece of gold and gives it to the charity fund ...
which gets something for nothing.

The charging of interest is forbidden in so far
that someone gets something for nothing.
I didn't get something for nothing. I got something in exchange for
giving another individual the power to use a piece of gold for an
entire month. I was fortunate that the individual even bothered to pay
me back at all.

And besides, what's wrong with getting me getting something for nothing
if the other individual AGREES to give me something for nothing? Just
call it ... charity if you will. As in, gee I let you use that gold
piece all month and thanks for giving it back, but brother can you
spare a dime? ;o)

Now, if the guy comes to you to get one piece of gold in order to buy
something and sell it a profit and you participate in the profit, that
is
perfectly fine. You shared the risk, hence you are entitled to share in
the profit. How much of the profit you get is a matter of negotiation
between the two of you. If you however charged him interest, did not
share
the risk and got something for nothing, then you loose the something
extra
you got.
Whoa there! I shared the risk and that entitles me to share in the
profit? That almost sounds like getting something for nothing --
except that you have wisely acknowledged that assuming risk deserves
compensation.

Since you also state that how much of the profit I get is a matter of
negotiation, then I'll simply phrase things differently to skirt the
prohibition against interest. (I'm pretty sure you've made this point
yourself in previous discussions.)

I'll invest my gold piece in the other guy's venture (e.g. his life).
I won't inquire into his business and demand a full accounting of
profits. I'll just assume he's making roughly 5%, so each month I'll
only require that he pay me 5% of only the amount I have invested with
him (the single gold piece). I won't demand any portion of the profits
he makes with his own money, because that would be getting something
for nothing. Also, he can defer paying me back in full if he chooses,
simply reinvesting my slice of the profits into his venture and then
paying me 5% of my now larger sum of money invested with him.

Presto chango! We have loans with variable payment schedules and
compounded interest, and I don't get thrown in jail! Yy! I've got
interest! Yaay! :-)

Except I think you're saying that if his venture fails in some way, I
cannot continue to demand the 5% and must forfeit my investment
entirely, right? But why should that be? Surely he has some other
irons in the fire, so why can't I demand that he pay me back in full
including my 5% share of the profits directly related to my investment?
His other ventures will just be less profitable to him, that's all.
And why can't we have an agreement that if all else fails, I get his
house? He could put up his house as collateral against his inability
to repay me if his venture goes astray.

-- Patrick

[e-gold-list] Re: paypal to e-gold service

2003-10-09 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Thursday, October 9, 2003, at 04:00 PM, Katz Global Media wrote:

I would disagree with this. They will make $20,000 in transactions of 
which
they will glean about 5% of, and then realize that they are being 
attacked
by scammers who are one by one. reversing their paypal spends and 
claiming
someone stole their accounts.

Good luck to you. I hope you have some magic way to avoid all this.
Paypal is warped, sick, stuff.  I had a dormant zero account and 
someone sent me some money from a fake email address which made me 
think it was a tip.  I accepted the payment.  Big mistake.  The guy 
sending the money was a total fraud, the payment was reversed, Paypal 
charged ME a reversal fee, and now I have a negative balance and Paypal 
wants to me to send them funds to bring the balance back up to zero.

No big deal, it's just a few bucks, but what a twisted, evil, demented, 
vomitous system it is.

-- Patrick

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: The Myth of Insufficient Gold

2003-10-09 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Thursday, October 9, 2003, at 02:47 PM, Danny Van den Berghe wrote:

Rather unnecessarily complicated constructions are being made to avoid
the word 'interest'...
What we call 'interest' in the West will be given other names like 
'rent'

Person 1 pays rent for the use of a house over a certain period and 
returns
the house to its owner at the end.
Person 2 pays 'rent' for the use of an amount of money over a certain 
period
and returns the money to its owner at the end.
Any difference?
The difference is that Person 2 gets his hide caned with a sheaf of 
tightly wound bamboo strips.

Any questions?

-- Patrick

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: The impressive progress of the Caliphate

2003-10-08 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Tuesday, October 7, 2003, at 06:38 AM, Danny Van den Berghe wrote:

No solution is perfect, but ultimately I think the idea of fiat
currency is
superior, if it is used responsibly.
Doesn't bother me if it's not compulsory. Any group of individuals can
trade amongst themselves using any combination of goods, services, or
notes payable in goods and services that they choose. One of that
group could even introduce fiat tokens into that mix and let them
compete freely with other media of trade. The rest of the group are
free to accept or reject the fiat tokens as they see fit, just as they
are free to accept or reject any other goods, services, or notes as
they see fit.

The problem with this little hunky dory free market scenario is that
the history of fiat tokens is more brutal than this. History seems to
suggest that the only way to get a large group of individuals to trade
in fiat tokens is to coerce them into doing so by brute force. After
the force is applied, the individuals will later rationalize the
situation and convince themselves that the whole system is voluntary --
everyone trades in fiat tokens because everyone else does. But one can
apply Menger's regression theorem to demonstrate that the true cause of
the widespread use of fiat tokens is the original application of brute
force many decades before.

So it is clear that a small powerful group of individuals can apply
brute force to cause a very large group to trade in fiat tokens. It is
also clear that the resulting state of affairs is what you might call
in physics a stable equilibrium point -- the system tends to remain
at that point in perpetuity until a major force comes along to knock it
away. Perhaps this explains why systems of fiat tokens end in disaster
if they end at all -- there may be no way to evolve away from fiat in a
gently continuous way. Maybe DGCs and the like will help, but probably
not. Ultimately there will always be taxes to pay in fiat tokens, and
everyone who pays taxes will thus be forced to liquidate some real
asset in exchange for fiat tokens. Property taxes alone will ensure
this -- pay up in fiat tokens or we kick you off your property.
Renting doesn't help because the landlord pays the taxes and passes
them onto the renters. So it will be fundamentally impossible to
refuse fiat tokens altogether unless one is willing to become a
homeless vagrant.

Yes there are safe havens such as gold, but issuers of fiat tokens may
take steps to depress prices in that market, and in any case in a
serious crisis they can always issue an outright ban on gold
possession, as the US did for about 40 years recently.

Between these grim and ideal scenarios there are many degrees of
freedom, and some of us are opting for more freedom.

-- Patrick

[e-gold-list] Re: The Myth of Insufficient Gold

2003-10-08 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Wednesday, October 8, 2003, at 05:49 PM, Robert B.Z. wrote:

So, for a gold currency to really and truly work, one has to hammer the
laws of physics into the masses and make them see that gold can't be 
made
from thin air and hence, interest has to be outlawed ;o)
So if I hand a piece of gold to guy and a month later he hands me back 
that amount of gold plus a bit more, I should be put in prison?  That 
sounds harsh -- it's just two consenting adults handing some metal back 
and forth.  Would it be ok if I handed the guy a sub sandwich and he 
gave me a sub plus a bag of potato chips a month later?  What's the 
deal here?

-- Patrick

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: When e-gold takes off in a big way

2003-10-06 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Monday, October 6, 2003, at 12:55 AM, Steve Schear wrote:

Under a gold standard, the amount of credit that an economy can 
support is determined by the economy's tangible assets, since every 
credit instrument is ultimately a claim on some tangible asset, ...
This reminds me of another important point.  Businesses can always 
trade in commercial paper when they find gold settlement inconvenient.  
Commercial paper is, after all, a good and faithful promise to deliver 
specific goods at a future date.

-- Patrick

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: When e-gold takes off in a big way

2003-10-06 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Monday, October 6, 2003, at 05:01 AM, FileMatrix wrote:

Why stop at 10%?  Crank it up to 20%

He is not creating any value...
Other people are creating the value.
Really?! Why should they create value if you don't.
 You tell Danny not to
stop at 10% inflation, yet you want *other* people to create value. 
And you
talk about slavery now?
They create value because they are being paid to do so.  Let me spell 
it out for you in simple steps.  (1) An individual saves money, i.e. 
spends less than he earns.  (2) The individual seeks a return on his 
savings, so he invests it with, say, a venture capital firm.  (3) An 
entrepreneur approaches the venture capitalist with a promising 
business plan.  (4) The venture capitalist invests a pile of the 
savings entrusted to him into the new business.  (5) The new business 
makes a pile of profit, i.e. spends less than it earns.  (6) The 
venture capitalist keeps a hefty chunk of the profit and pays out 
another hefty chunk to the individuals who have invested their savings 
with him.  (7) Everybody becomes happier than they were before.  No 
enslavement was necessary, only the profit motive.

Let me spell something else out for you very simply.  The scenario 
described above is possible regardless of what form of money is being 
used.  You can use fiat paper, gold, silver, seashells, commercial 
paper, government bonds, or Yap stones and the whole thing still works. 
 The only difference is that with fiat paper the value of the savings 
drops steadily and this functions as a continuous tax on all wealth 
with the proceeds going to a privileged group.  With gold the value of 
the savings remains essentially constant.  Thus, people are rewarded 
for saving and for making judicious, well-timed investments.

Let me go even further than that.  Even when people use gold as money, 
they can still set up banks which receive gold on deposit and engage in 
fractional reserve lending to create additional deposit currency -- as 
long as the bank explicitly spells out the terms of the arrangement in 
a clear contract with its depositors.  Here again I am affirming that I 
do not view the issuing of fiat paper or the practice of fractional 
reserve lending as inherently immoral actions.  I only object to the 
use of fraud and force.  The current system of fiat paper in the US was 
born in the iniquity of fraud (lying propaganda about economic 
salvation and stability) and force (theft and imprisonment, i.e. hand 
over your gold or go to jail).

And let me go even further than that.  Although I despise the 
imposition of income and wealth (property) taxes, if a society uses 
gold as money and imposes taxes to be paid in gold, I would view that 
as an improvement over requiring taxes to be paid in fiat paper.  That 
way the government is limited to what the people will pay it outright 
and in full view, and would be denied the opportunity to collect a 
stealth tax on all wealth merely by issuing fiat tokens.  This is 
precisely why the US government will never return to a true gold 
standard, i.e. certificates redeemable on demand in gold.  It is also 
precisely why the US government will never allow the payment of taxes 
in gold, and why in the 1930's they banned businesses from writing 
contracts denominated in gold.  The system we have can only be 
maintained by force of arms -- obey or go to jail.

At a bare minimum, the US government could pass legislation allowing 
the payment of Federal taxes in gold, and remove the restriction 
against business contracts denominated in gold (this latter may already 
be the case, I don't know).  First, let me reiterate that I think the 
entire income and FICA taxes should be abolished, but I am assuming for 
the sake of discussion that they will remain for a while.  With that in 
mind, I think that allowing the payment of taxes in gold might 
significantly undermine the utility of the Fed's monopoly money because 
businesses could transact all day long in units of gold and still be 
able to meet whatever tax obligations they think they have without 
having to liquidate into fiat paper.  To put it differently, businesses 
would be in a much stronger position to refuse to accept fiat paper 
altogether.

I will say right now that I have not fully thought through the 
consequences of allowing taxes to be paid in gold.  I only mention the 
idea because it appears that my primary moral objection to fiat paper 
is the forceful requirement that taxes be paid in it.  If that is truly 
my ONLY moral objection to fiat paper, then it stands to reason that if 
that requirement is lifted I should have no further objections to the 
system as it is.  Mind you, any objections I have to the payment of 
taxes at all are beside the point -- when taxes are paid in gold I may 
no longer object to fiat paper but I may still object to the taxes.  We 
can cross that bridge when we get to it.

-- Patrick

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL

[e-gold-list] Re: When e-gold takes off in a big way

2003-10-06 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Monday, October 6, 2003, at 01:40 PM, Steve Schear wrote:

At 12:11 PM 10/6/2003 -0400, Patrick Chkoreff wrote:
It is also precisely why the US government will never allow the 
payment of taxes in gold, and why in the 1930's they banned 
businesses from writing contracts denominated in gold.  The system we 
have can only be maintained by force of arms -- obey or go to jail.
Can you quote a specific passage in current federal law that holds 
this?  I looked at the legal tender laws a few years ago and found 
that it legal for a contact to demand settlement in gold or other 
commodity.  Aren't gold futures settled this way?
Right, I'm not sure what the current status is, I only know that there 
was a ban at the time.  Here is an interesting history of the whole 
mess starting with the 1917 Trading With The Enemy Act all the way 
through FDR's fusillade of Executive Orders in 1933:

http://users.rcn.com/mgfree/Economics/goldHistory.html

About a quarter of the way down there is a section titled How To 
Impair the Obligation of Contracts and Get Away With It.  Here is an 
excerpt:

excerpt

The proper transactions and maturing obligations calling for payment 
in gold which the Treasury Department was coyly alluding to, involved 
what was known as 'gold clause contracts. These were agreements, quite 
common at the time, pursuant to which payment was to be made in gold. 
Needless to say, there were payments coming due in gold under these 
contracts every day all over America. Now that the government 
controlled the ownership of gold, how were these contracts to be 
performed? Were the contract obligers to be the applicants in 
question? In theory, perhaps, but not in practice. Under the 
regulations of April 29, it seemed that one might obtain a license from 
the Treasury and thus legally possess gold required for the contract 
performance. But no matter what the regulations implied, Acting 
Secretary Ballantine had announced that no one would receive a license 
until he had first surrendered his gold. 45 Moreover, how could the 
Treasury grant licenses even to persons who did surrender their gold, 
in the face of official policy which sought to establish a virtual 
government monopoly on all the gold in America?

Accordingly, to solve this particular problem, the administration 
promptly prevailed on Congress to wipe out all obligations to pay in 
gold. The Joint Resolution of June 5, 1933 speaks for itself:

resolution

Whereas the holding of or dealing in gold affect the public interest, 
and are therefore subject to proper regulation and restriction; and

Whereas the existing emergency has disclosed that provisions of 
obligations which purport to give the obligee a right to require 
payment in gold or a particular kind of currency of the United States, 
or in an amount in money of the United States measured thereby, 
obstruct the power of the Congress to regulate the value of the money 
of the United States, and are inconsistent with the declared policy of 
the Congress to maintain at all times the equal power of every dollar, 
coined or issued by the United States, in the markets and in payment of 
debts.

Now, therefore, be it resolved that (a) every provision contained in or 
made with respect to any obligation which purports to give the obligee 
a right to require payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or 
currency or an amount in dollars of the United States measured thereby, 
is declared to be against public policy; and no such provision shall be 
contained in or made with respect to any obligation hereafter incurred. 
Every obligation, heretofore or hereafter incurred, whether or not any 
such provision is contained therein or made with respect thereto shall 
be discharged upon payment, dollar for dollar, in any coin or currency 
which at the time of payment is legal tender for public and private 
debts.

/resolution

In short, because of the alleged but unspecified emergency, all 
voluntary, private agreements to pay and to be paid in gold-past, 
present, and future-were declared against public policy, and gold was 
no longer a medium of exchange between private individuals.

/excerpt

Steve, I suspect you are right that such prohibition is ancient 
history.  I don't know what happened to the prohibition against gold 
clauses, but after a few years the point probably became moot as 
contracts were settled because it was illegal to possess gold anyway.  
After the US forced its monetary wizardry on the people and 
psychologically conditioned a couple of generations to forget the old 
ways, culminating in the abolition of silver coinage in 1964, they were 
able to lift the ban on private gold ownership in 1974 without 
perceiving any threat to their interests.  That may turn out to have 
been a mistake on their part, and they may eventually find it necessary 
to reinstate the old prohibitions.

-- Patrick

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe

[e-gold-list] Re: When e-gold takes off in a big way

2003-10-05 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Sunday, October 5, 2003, at 03:56 AM, Danny Van den Berghe wrote:

An economy where only gold is used as money, would have some problems.

Because there is only a fixed amount of gold(money) to facilitate a 
growing
exchange of goods, obviously the value of gold will have to rise.
When the value of money rises people tend to postpone their (big) 
purchases,
as they know they will pay less for the same good or service in the 
future.
In other words, this 'only gold' economy always functions with the 
brakes
on.
Yes, the computer industry is certainly functioning with the brakes on, 
isn't it?  My goodness, the amount of computing power you can get for 
the money is doubling every year, so people tend to postpone buying a 
computer as long as possible.  Yeah, that's a pretty stagnant industry. 
 Sure would be a lot better if each year you could only get 10% less 
computing power for the same money -- so everyone would buy a computer 
now rather than later!  Gotta keep people spending like drunken sailors 
ya know -- the economy depends on it!  Saving is for old fuddy-duddy 
losers who grew up during the Depression and now have hair growing out 
of their ears!

(With paper money that looses 5 or 10% of its value every year, there 
is a
strong incentive to use it or invest it in something that doesn't loose
value so quickly. So the money moves faster and this economy runs 
better)
Why stop at 10%?  Crank it up to 20% and get people hopping like 
they're jacked up on crystal meth.

Seriously, the success of an economy is not measured by the speed at 
which people buy lots of extraneous crap.  It is measured by gains in 
wealth and productivity created by mental ingenuity and effort financed 
by capital invested from people's savings.  It is driven by producers 
and savers, not consumers.

And I have always wondered why somebody who just keeps money in his 
pocket
(or in his bank account) should be rewarded with a positive return on 
his
(non)investment.
He is not creating any value...
Other people are creating the value.  That's the great thing about 
wealth creation -- when people become more productive everybody really 
does benefit.  An Aztec king would envy the items and conveniences that 
you and I take for granted, and would think that we did nothing 
ourselves to deserve all that fabulous wealth.  And he'd be right.

So if farmers improve their techniques, and harvesters, shippers, and 
merchandisers become more productive and ingenious, then the price of 
apples drops by 2% and everyone who likes apples benefits.  And no, 
apples will not pile up in warehouses rotting because people are 
waiting for the price to drop.  If that starts to happen, people will 
cut back on apple production and instead focus capital and energy on 
producing the things people really do want right now.  There will 
always be something that lots of people really want right now, and 
that's what we call a business opportunity.

Also, even if people used gold as money there would still be plenty of 
incentive to invest one's savings in new enterprises.  A 2% reduction 
in your grocery costs next year is not going to be a high enough return 
for most people.  They will still invest much of their gold savings in 
business ventures.  That is precisely how those farmers, harvesters, 
shippers, and merchandisers become more productive in the first place.  
But old folks who worked and saved all of their lives may prefer to 
play it safe and passively watch the value of their savings compound at 
2%.  Kind of like owning a CD today but with a better return and less 
risk.

At this point it is important to note that the supply of gold does not 
in fact remain constant as we have been assuming in this discussion for 
illustration purposes, but tends to grow at about 2% annually.  That is 
commensurate with the pace of economic growth, which is probably why 
the price of a men's suit in terms of gold tends to remain fairly 
constant even over periods of a century or more.  So the geezers might 
not get that free lunch next year after all.

As a result they will build houses, buy cars, buy jewelry, invest it 
in new
ideas,
If the money gains value every year, people will keep it in their 
pockets
and the country will function below its possibilities.

People are too much focussed on 'money', while the real wealth of a 
country
is in the good and services that are produced.
If 'bad money' forces people to do something with it and stimulates 
them to
create homes, products,... before the 'paper' becomes worthless, then 
this
'bad money' has served a great purpose.
We do not need 'bad money' to motivate people to invest.  Regardless of 
what money they use, people will invest their savings if they see a 
prospect for gain.  Problem is, bad money constantly erodes the value 
of those savings and therefore forces and stimulates people to make 
desperate, lemming-like, ill-conceived, unproductive, and hastily 
considered investments.

[e-gold-list] Re: units

2003-10-04 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Saturday, October 4, 2003, at 03:11 AM, Wilkinson Jens wrote:

I actually had a scenario in mind when I asked this
question. I was trying to imagine some small town grocer
selling apples, and having to write up a sign that says:
one apple - 0.008 GAU, which doesn't seem the easiest way
to write up a sign. ...
I agree.  First, although I like the GAU designation used in Pecunix 
for its technical accuracy, in many cases it is already understood that 
gold is the commodity being traded.  As a result, people will continue 
to use convenient notations like 3.7g or 370cg, which specify only a 
quantity and a unit of mass.

Second, I also agree that nitpicky fractional amounts with lots of 
zeroes like 0.008 are inconvenient.  It is common to use 'mg' to 
represent a milligram (of gold).  The price of an apple in your 
scenario would be 8mg -- a nice whole number.

-- Patrick

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: When e-gold takes off in a big way

2003-10-04 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Friday, October 3, 2003, at 06:10 PM, FileMatrix wrote:

The supply of gold remains constant; the supply of goods increases.  
Value
of gold relative to goods increases.
So, you're the big chief of a country. I am the big chief of another. 
We
have economies that we equally value to 1 ton of gold (which we have 
in our
vaults).
I am a simple man, George.  I do not know what it means to have an 
economy and to value it at 1 ton of gold.  To me, that sounds like 
trying to figure out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Honestly, I'm not trying to be cute here, George.  I do not know how to 
determine the value of an economy -- I do not even know what that 
means.  You tell me, what is the value of, say, the entire US economy?  
To me, an economy is just a whole bunch of people doing stuff.  In 
my country, as chief I would stay out of everybody's business -- I 
would not even _know_ what was going on in my economy.  For example, 
if a mother in my country hired a tutor for her child, I the chief 
would never know about it and would never ask to know about it.  It's 
none of my business what a mother does with her money, and I certainly 
wouldn't deserve a piece of the action as modern governments demand.

I do understand one thing.  I as an individual can maintain a vault.  
People can bring gold to me and deposit it into my vault, and in return 
I will give them gold certificates (receipts) for that gold.  Anyone 
presenting a certificate to me and requesting gold will get it 
immediately.  If enough people trust me, I might end up with 1 ton of 
gold in my vault.  That gold will belong to the bearers of my 
certificates.  It will not belong to me, the chief, and it will not 
belong to the country.  The gold will not represent the value of 
my economy.  It will simply be a big pile of stuff in my safekeeping. 
 I could do the same thing with silver, wheat, or any other commodity.

Now you, in some other country, might do the same thing, and end up 
with a ton of gold in your vault too.  Then you get the big idea to 
print up a bunch more gold certificates representing a ton of gold that 
you do not have.  You will spend these certificates for your own ends, 
purchasing goodies, space programs, votes (welfare), and what have you. 
 The people getting the certificates will think they can redeem them 
for gold.  When they find out that they cannot, and believe me, they 
WILL find out, they will be fully justified in ... well, let's just say 
that very often in history an individual perpetrating this kind of 
counterfeiting ended up on public display hanging by his neck at the 
end of a rope.

However, times do change, I'll grant you that.  Most people are now 
conditioned to recognize a particular individual, a chief, as having 
the sole power to engage in such counterfeiting.  In other words, the 
chief has the ability to get something for nothing, and the people LIKE 
it that way.  That's because the chief stays busy taking stuff from 
some people and giving it to others, thus keeping most of the people 
happy some of the time.

Let me reiterate something George just to be clear.  I do not care one 
whit if any individual, chief or otherwise, prints up a bunch of 
certificates and declares openly:  These certificates cannot be 
redeemed for anything whatsoever.  And if that individual can then 
spend those certificates to get maids cleaning his house, gardeners 
tending his flowers, a personal cook and valet, then more power to him. 
 Maybe I should try it myself.  But when that individual forces others 
to accept those certificates, forbids others from using anything other 
than those certificates, and requires periodic tribute to be paid only 
in those certificates, he has earned a public display at the end of a 
rope.  Such people are no different in principle from the thugs 
portrayed in Martin Scorsese's movie Gangs of New York, though Daniel 
Day Lewis' character is far more admirable than that of modern 
politicians because at least he did his own wet work.

-- Patrick

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: When e-gold takes off in a big way

2003-10-03 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Friday, September 19, 2003, at 07:38 AM, FileMatrix wrote:

Where did you get the idea that an economy can't outgrow the amount of
gold
a country posses? How is that? ...
A piece of gold can go a long way. Let's say Alice produces food and
Bob produces electricity. Alice buys some power from Bob with a piece
of gold. That night, Bob buys his supper from Alice with that same
piece of gold. The next day, Alice buys some power from Bob with that
same piece of gold. That night, Bob buys his supper from Alice with
that same piece of gold. The next day, Alice buys some power from Bob
with that same piece of gold. That night, Bob buys his supper from
Alice with that same piece of gold.

Alice and Bob continue to do this for the next twenty years and then
they die. One piece of gold has managed to purchase the entire food
and energy output of two people for twenty years. (Obviously Alice and
Bob will require other inputs during this time, but the same principle
of trade applies there as well.)

So, if Zimbabwe has just 1 ton of gold, they
should limit their economy to that. ...
Well, first of all, countries do not own gold, individuals do. But
yes, if the people of Zimbabwe limited their economy to the amount of
gold they possessed, that would help a lot. But instead they have
chosen to march down the highway to hell, and many people will die
there.

But what would be gold's value then? As
their economy would grow, would they say gold's value increases? ...
Yes, exactly. When you have a fixed supply of money (gold) and the
economy grows, then the value of gold increases. Hayek made that exact
point in his 1931 book Prices and Production:

It would appear that the reasons commonly advanced as a proof that the
quantity of the circulating medium should vary as production increases
or decreases are entirely unfounded. It would appear also that the fall
of prices proportionate to the increase in productivity, which
necessarily follows when, the amount of money remaining the same,
production increases, is not only entirely harmless, but in fact the
only means of avoiding misdirections of production.

(See today's article The Myth of Insufficient Gold at
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north213.html .)

How come?
Easy. The supply of gold remains constant; the supply of goods
increases. Value of gold relative to goods increases. Ain't it cool?
It's nice to know that your savings, i.e. the gold gathering dust in
your vault, is gaining value as a result of the increased productivity
of other people.

In case you still don't think there's enough gold and silver, these
two references suggest that there are perhaps 3 billion ounces of gold
and maybe 1 billion ounces of silver known to be above ground (much
less silver because it's consumed rapidly).

http://www.investmentrarities.com/01-29-03.html
http://www.wexfordcoin.com/SilverBullMarket.htm
Even at today's gold price of about $370 / oz., those 3 billion ounces
could be simultaneously traded for over $1 trillion worth of stuff
today. Tomorrow, they could be traded for $1 trillion worth of stuff
all over again.

But what if you wanted to buy a single apple worth 20 cents? No
problem -- that's about 17mg of gold. If you can create tokens for 20
cents you can create them for 17mg.

If fedgov declared that the entire M3 money supply ($8995 billion)
could now be redeemed on demand for Treasury gold reserves (261.5
million oz), then the price of an ounce of gold at the redemption
window would be about $34000. Therefore, fedgov will never do that.
Fedgov will continue to create counterfeit money and most people will
continue to labor for it.

I suspect that inflation will continue at a modest pace for a couple of
decades. Meanwhile total tax burdens on individuals will rise from
their current 60% level to about 80%, and promised government benefits
will be cut. At that point government revenues will have fallen
dramatically due to a combination of lower economic activity and
reduced tax compliance, and the only avenue of escape for government
will be high levels of monetary inflation. Even if Alan Greenspan
lives forever I don't think he could stop it.

-- Patrick

[e-gold-list] Re: Great Photos of both Gold and Silver US certs up to 1957

2003-10-03 Thread Patrick Chkoreff



On Thursday, October 2, 2003, at 04:33 PM, Patrick Chkoreff wrote:

conversion ratio of about $19.39 per ounce, slightly less
than the $20 per ounce figure you ordinarily hear about.
Perhaps the balance would represent some exchange fee
built into the system?  It is an interesting point.
I do not see any place in the 1792 Act where the dollar defined as 
exactly one twentieth ounce of gold, or 24 grains.  It is explicitly 
defined as 24.75 grains.

Tonight when I get back home I'm going to look in my 1935 original 
copy of Robeson's Monetary Mischief because I vaguely recall him 
saying something about this explicitly.
The author's name is actually George Buchan Robinson.  Only thing I saw 
was some talk about the gold dollar being defined as 23.22 grains, and 
that yields another figure I've seen before, about $20.67 per ounce.

So is the gold dollar 24.75 grains, 24 grains, or 23.22 grains?  In 
other words, is an ounce of gold $19.39, $20.00, or $20.67?  I still 
don't know the true story here -- maybe your hunch about built-in 
exchange fees has some merit.

-- Patrick

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: When e-gold takes off in a big way

2003-10-03 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Friday, October 3, 2003, at 06:10 PM, FileMatrix wrote:

... And that is because the growth of an economy doesn't
mean moving money back and forth between Alice and Bob, but creating
new
value!
In your attempt to make a caricature of my example you have neglected
the most obvious point of it. Alice and Bob did not just move money
back and forth. They created twenty years worth of food and power.
That is a lot of new value being created, far more than the value of a
single piece of gold. Yet their entire economy between them for twenty
years was facilitated by a single piece of gold.

Clearly it is not necessary for the value of all gold to equal the
value of every other thing on earth. Gold is just one of the many
goods on earth including wheat, corn, and razor blades. It's just
something you hold onto until you want some other good. I can trade a
piece of gold for a bushel of wheat in one second, and in the next
second the wheat farmer can trade the same piece of gold for a bushel
of corn. There does not have to be enough gold to buy both the bushel
of wheat and the bushel of corn simultaneously. Goods pass from hand
to hand and that's that. There is no requirement for the value of one
type of good to equal the value of all other goods.

I'll address your other points in time, but for now I'll close with a
quote from George Buchan Robinson's 1935 book Monetary Mischief,
where he analyzed the causes of the 1929 crash and subsequent
depression. Quoting from a section titled The Dollar Must Be Defined:

What we need now, above all other steps, is a definition of the dollar
and a commitment not to change it again. It is immoral for the United
States to go on borrowing money, expecting to devalue the dollar of the
payment date. ... The obvious way, and the only way, to do this is *to
define the dollar,* so that men will again know what they are talking
about in their money matters.

There are only two prime forms of money: one is a given amount of
precious metal, and the other is a *good* and *faithful* promise to pay
such an amount. The lowest form of money is paper currency redeemable
only in itself. We now have the latter, and must change to the former.
Of the precious metals, gold has proved to be by far the best; and
there is plenty of it in the world, and in the United States, to
finance much more business than is being done at present, provided good
and faithful promises to pay gold (or its equivalent) can again be
established. ...

-- Patrick

[e-gold-list] Re: question about units

2003-10-01 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Wednesday, October 1, 2003, at 07:19 AM, Wilkinson Jens wrote:

One thing I wanted to ask about is units. Gold is
generally counted in troy ounces or in grams, but both of
these units seem a bit far from real life. I think that
a gram is worth about 10 dollars, so that means one US
cent would be about 0.001 dollars, forcing you to use
three digits. Wouldn't it be better to count in either
decigrammes or even centigrammes? Has anybody ever thought
about this?
The gram is an excellent unit for purchasing items like coffee and
books. Centigrams are often used for lesser amounts such as individual
bets at The Gold Casino. Notations like 3.7g and 42cg are very
convenient for such purposes.

For those of us steeped in the culture of US fiat tokens, it does help
to remember that a 'g' is like ten bucks, a 'cg' is like a dime,
and a 'mg' is like a penny -- though it's really about 25% higher
than that these days.

I suppose one could use 'dg' for decigram, but I'd just as soon use
0.3g or 30cg. If you're into micropayments you can use 'ug' for
microgram and 'ng' for nanogram. I tend to view micropayments as
literally more trouble than they are worth, though others seem to have
found economically viable applications for them.

-- Patrick

[e-gold-list] Re: Great Photos of both Gold and Silver US certs up to 1957

2003-10-01 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Wednesday, October 1, 2003, at 02:32 PM, Gold Pages Staff wrote:

I have seven great photo copies here from 1899 - 1957.

http://www.liberty-silver.net/US_Silver-Gold_Certificates.htm

Including the US 1922 $10 Large Size Gold Note

which states  Payable to bearer on demand, ten dollars in gold 
coin


Typically this meant that if you presented the note at a Treasury 
window, you would receive a gold Eagle coin in return.  A gold Eagle 
consists of 247.5 grains of pure gold combined with 22.5 grains of 
silver and copper for a total mass of 270 grains.

Since there are 480 grains to a troy ounce, the Eagle actually contains 
just over half an ounce of pure gold -- 0.515625 oz to be exact.  That 
a conversion ratio of about $19.39 per ounce, slightly less than the 
$20 per ounce figure you ordinarily hear about.

-- Patrick

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: The sky is crowded?!

2003-09-29 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Monday, September 29, 2003, at 10:47 AM, Katz Global Media wrote:

Why does Kinko's have an apostrophe in the name?
The term Kinko's is the possessive form meaning belonging to Kinko. 
 Paul Orfalea, who started the business in 1970, acquired the nickname 
Kinko because of his curly, reddish hair.

http://www.kinkos.com/about_us/history.php

-- Patrick

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: When e-gold takes off in a big way

2003-09-22 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Sunday, September 21, 2003, at 05:52 AM, FileMatrix wrote:

I wonder what Robert S.Z. has to say about Malaysia using gold only 
for a
limited time.
Robert *said* that!
George:

I searched back through the e-gold list and I do not see where Robert 
said that.  Perhaps you can find the citation since you are so sure of 
it.

By the way, here is Robert's original announcement from 30-Jun, and I 
quote:

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am extatic to announce that as of today 1. July 2003 Malaysia has
declared that she will replace foreign currency reserves with gold over
the next two years and take the Malaysian Ringgit our of the 
international
fiat trading system to be the World's first fully gold backed currency
once the framework is completed.
Malaysia furthermore intends to renegotiate all bilaterial treaties and
trade agreements to allow for the fact that future settlements will be
conducted in gold.

Finally, with establishment of the Bank of International Gold 
Settlements
in Kuala Lumpur next year Malaysia strongly urges her trading partners 
to
follow her examples.

I wonder if we'll get invaded sometime soonish?

-- Patrick

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.

[e-gold-list] dinar

2003-09-20 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

I just found out that in addition to the 4.25g dinar coin, Malaysia 
will also issue 1/4 dinar, 1/2 dinar, 2 dinar, and  4 dinar coins.

http://www.khilafah.com/home/category.php?DocumentID=7961TagID=2

Each coin has a gold purity of 91.7%, also known as 22-carat gold.

Weights, and USD value of the pure gold calculated at $12.25/g, are:

1/4 dinar:   1.06g   $11.90
1/2 dinar:   2.12g   $23.80
1/1 dinar:   4.25g   $47.73
2/1 dinar:   8.50g   $95.46
4/1 dinar:   17.0g   $190.91
However, note this:

The introduction of the Dinar here is as a commodity, particularly for 
savings purpose and not as currency or legal tender, Dr Awang told a 
press conference yesterday.

He said the introduction of Dinar provided an alternative mode of 
investment for the public who would normally place savings in banks or 
purchase property or land.
On the other hand:

Dr Awang said there was great potential in expanding the use of Dinar, 
particularly for the Muslims, such as using them to pay zakat and 
fitrah, dowries and for pilgrimage to Mecca.

 We are studying the possibility of Islamic institutions such as 
Tabung Haji, Bank Islam and others allowing their customers to make 
payments with Dinar, he said.


-- Patrick
http://fexl.com
---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: When e-gold takes off in a big way

2003-09-18 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Thursday, September 18, 2003, at 08:08 AM, FileMatrix wrote:

In conclusion, gold needs paper money so it could be valuable relative
to
that.
George:

You have it exactly backwards. Paper money needs gold so it can be
valuable relative to that. That's the way it was in the United States
until about 1933. The Mint Act of 1792 defined the dollar as 24.75
grains of pure gold. So if you presented a Ten Dollar paper note to
the US Treasury, the Treasury was obligated to give you 247.5 grains of
pure gold. This took the form of an Eagle coin, defined in the Act
of 1792 as consisting of 247.5 grains of pure gold combined with 22.5
grains of silver and copper for added strength and durability, yielding
a coin weighing 270 grains.

I can see that FDR and his intellectual heirs did a good job in
re-educating you to accept colored paper as valuable simply because a
government worker prints it, and for no other reason whatsoever. You
are a good and obedient servant.

You forget one thing in your arguments: paper money can be printed,
gold CAN
NOT! Economic value can not be pegged to gold!
You have it exactly backwards. Precisely because paper money can be
printed, economic value cannot be pegged to it. You cannot create
economic value by putting some ink on a piece of paper. If that piece
of paper cannot redeemed for a real asset (e.g. gold, silver, wheat, a
haircut, whatever), then printing the piece of paper actually destroys
economic value because the person doing the printing is getting
something for nothing.

Didn't your mother ever tell you that money doesn't grow on trees?

And even it were possible to make it from led, the day gold will be
created
on industrial scale in particle accelerators, is the day gold ends its
life
as currency. So, that case is out.
You have it exactly backwards. Paper tokens falsely passing as money
are now being created on an industrial scale using printing presses,
not particle accelerators. This is the day that paper tokens end their
life as currency. So, that case is out.

[e-gold-list] Re: Mugabe's bearer checks

2003-09-18 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Thursday, September 18, 2003, at 08:37 AM, James M. Ray wrote:

http://www.sabcnews.com/Article/PrintWholeStory/0,2160,65959,00.html

Wow. The fastest shrinking economy on the planet!
JMR

Wow, so instead of printing pieces of paper and calling them cash,
they are printing pieces of paper and calling them bearer cheques.
Oh, and the pieces of paper called bearer cheques EXPIRE on
31-Jan-04. Wow, that sounds like a GREAT deal -- sign me up! I would
MUCH rather have a piece of paper called a bearer cheque that expires
than a piece of paper called cash that does not expire. What a great
invention, as they call it.

This is classic:

Banking executives said the only difference between a bearer cheque
and a banknote was that the central bank would not call them
banknotes, and that they expired on January 31 next year.
Seems to me that in Zimbabwe the terms cash, bearer cheque, and
banknote are all pretty much synonymous with dog turd, except that
a dog turd is much more valuable because you can use it for fertilizer.

Here's another classic from a bank executive:

With inflation now at 427%, it means that five times as much cash is
needed now than a year ago,
Let me get this straight. Because inflation is so high, they need to
print up a LOT more cash.

The people of Zimbabwe seem to be living in one of those Hieronymus
Bosch paintings of Hell.

-- Patrick

[e-gold-list] Re: When e-gold takes off in a big way

2003-09-18 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Thursday, September 18, 2003, at 11:58 AM, FileMatrix wrote:

As Graham said, it will only be a fraction of a fraction of a 
percentage of
the worlds economies! Gold simply can't back the world's economy! 
There
isn't enough! Paper money can exactly because it can be printed (and
destroyed)!
Backing the world's economy means nothing.  There is no need for a 
central board measuring the size of a ridiculous abstraction like 
the economy,  and printing up pieces of paper with numerals on them 
such that they all add up to that total number.  This is a conceptually 
empty idea, signifying nothing.  There is no size of the economy.

There are only individual people trading things for things.  For 
thousands of years people traded gold, silver, and other goods and 
services in exchange for gold, silver, and other goods and services.  
Gold and silver happen to have been the most universally traded 
commodities, but are otherwise essentially no different from other 
assets.  In most places and times the standard unit of exchange was 
defined as a fixed quantity of the most universally traded commodities, 
namely gold and silver.

You are suggesting that in 1933 everything changed, and FDR had the 
good sense to turn the conventional wisdom of thousands of years 
completely upside down.  Oh.  Sorry, I didn't get the memo.


Paper money doesn't need gold, and that is because it should back the
economy not the gold. Paper money is supposed to be issued to cover the
entire economic value of a country. If you would try to back the USD 
with
gold, you would find it impossible to back the *entire* economic value 
of US
with that USD. There just isn't enough gold in the world for that.
There is plenty of gold and other assets to back any economy.  That's 
because the economy is nothing more than individuals trading gold and 
other assets.  To suggest that we need a particular group of people to 
produce fake assets out of thin air and that millions of people 
should then trade those fake assets as if they were real is ... insane 
just on the face of it.


*An economy has to grow! The amount of gold, in the entire world, 
can't grow
(extracted from the ground) as fast as the world's economy, and 
certainly
not in the same amount / volume.*
If I am a hungry barber and you are a mop-haired pizza delivery man, 
then we can make a trade.  Now I am a sated barber and you are a neatly 
groomed pizza delivery man.  The economy has now grown because both of 
us are now better off, i.e. wealthier, than we were before.  Yet no 
additional money was printed -- or even mined!  Therefore, it is 
possible for the economy to grow without any expansion in the global 
supply of money.  QED

At this point you may object:  But that's barter!  Not necessarily.  
The barber can give the pizza man 1g of gold, and two weeks later the 
pizza man can give the barber 1g of gold.

I repeat:  there is no economy.  There is no central thing called 
the economy that needs a particular group of people to manage it in 
any way.

Also, there is plenty of gold that can be used to trade goods and 
services.  If there is not enough gold, then the value of gold 
relative to other goods and services simply rises.  Or in other words, 
the price of goods and services in terms of gold simply drops.  Now the 
haircut (and the pizza) both cost 0.5g, for example.

There is nothing unique about gold here.  Every single asset has a 
price in terms of every other single asset.  A gram of gold is traded 
for so much wheat, a bushel of wheat is traded for so many tomatoes, 
etc.  It just turns out that gold happens to be the thing that most 
people ALWAYS want, at any time and under any circumstances.  It's 
shiny, durable, divisible, recognizable, and ultimately useful in 
manufacturing, including the making of jewelry to impress women.

The point is, gold is an ASSET, just like tomatoes, lumber, water, 
fertilizer, chicken wire, pencils, cigarettes, cat litter, haircuts, 
asphalt, bulldozers, guns, and kiwi fruit.  It just so happens that of 
all the various forms of assets, gold is the one that most people want 
most of the time.

You might argue that paper money is ALSO an asset.  As JP says, 
whoever thinks paper tokens are worthless, please give them all to me!  
But this is only because the bulk of the population have given 
themselves over to the mass enslavement and delusion that a particular 
group of people called the Fed can manufacture assets out of thin 
air.  They cannot.  Nobody can.

But they have gotten the bulk of the population to jump to their tune.  
By printing up paper, the government can get contractors and their 
employees to work for them like dogs.  Imagine if I could fire up my 
laser jet printer and print out a certificate, which I would then 
give to a cleaning service to clean up my house!  And that certificate 
was redeemable for absolutely nothing!  Boy, I would indeed endeavor to 
back an entire economy that way!  I could break

[e-gold-list] Trade, Tokens, Taxes

2003-09-18 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

George:

A few clarifications are in order.

There are only individual people trading things for things.
I view this as primary. A trade is just two individuals mutually
causing a change in their state of affairs. Before a trade, Alice is
in state X and Bob is in state Y. After the trade, Alice is in state
X' and Bob is in state Y'. If in Alice's judgment X' X, and in Bob's
judgment Y' Y, then that trade is what you call a win-win. Most
honest trades have this characteristic, otherwise neither Alice or Bob
would be motivated to make the trade, but of course buyer's or seller's
remorse is always possible.

For example, before a trade, Alice has three trays of flowers and her
hair needs styling. Bob needs three trays of flowers and he is a hair
stylist with an hour free next week. After the trade, Alice has a
promise from Bob to style her hair next week, and Bob has three trays
of flowers with an extra hour blocked out on his calendar.

The possibilities are endless. You can use fiat tokens, gold, notes
redeemable for gold, physical assets of any kind, direct services,
Ithaca hours (what Hettinga not so fondly calls labor theory of
value Marxist happy horseshit), promises to deliver services in the
future, whatever you like. It is none of my business how you or
anybody else trades. If Alice wants to print up a fiat certificate of
some kind, and give this to Bob in exchange for a hair style, then more
power to her. If she defrauds or forces Bob into the trade, then I
certainly sympathize with Bob but it's generally no business of mine
unless I know Alice or Bob in some way.

Now here is another example, and perhaps some of you can see where I am
going with this. Let's say Alice issues fiat tokens. On occasion, Bob
wants to borrow some tokens from Alice. So Bob issues a bond and
trades that to Alice in exchange for some new tokens. Bob promises to
repay Alice in tokens with interest.

So far so good. I don't have a problem with it. LET IT HAPPEN. It
does not threaten me, my loved ones, or my property in any way.

Yet this is exactly what the US fedgov does, with the Federal Reserve
in the place of Alice, and the US Government in the place of Bob. So
why should I have a problem with that, if I don't have a problem with
private individuals or companies doing it? Or rather, what exactly
would Alice or Bob have to do to cause me to object?

I can only think of two things.

1. Bob would have to approach me and demand that I pay him some Alice
tokens, on pain of imprisonment, loss of property, injury, or death.

2. Bob would have to approach me and demand that I not trade in
anything except Alice's tokens, on pain of imprisonment, loss of
property, injury, or death.

In various ways and at various times, this is exactly what the US
Government has done. They demand taxes paid in tokens, and they forbid
many forms of trade. At various times they have forbidden the
ownership of gold, the stating of legal contracts in terms of gold
settlement, and even the production of metal coins of original design
with the intent to use them as current money:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/486.html

So as long as Bob didn't do (1) or (2) above, I would not have any
objection to his and Alice's cozy little arrangement. However, because
Bob (the US Gov't) does threaten (1) and (2) above, and not just to me
but to everybody in the US and some outside the US, Bob is effectively
forcing people to accept Alice's tokens in trade, to avoid other forms
of trade, and to toil their lives away in pursuit of the tokens.

This is what people mean when they say that US Gov't bonds are backed
by the sweat of taxpayers, and that Federal Reserve tokens represent
the debt obligations of taxpayers and are not true assets in themselves.

Note that I do not think fractional reserve lending is the source of
the problem. As I pointed out with a detailed example many months ago,
and as Greenspan points out in his 1966 article, fractional reserve
lending is entirely possible even within a monetary system based
entirely on gold. But even here the Federal Reserve enters the stage,
magnifying the otherwise morally neutral practice of fractional reserve
lending into a major engine of monetary inflation.

[e-gold-list] Re: When e-gold takes off in a big way

2003-09-17 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Wednesday, September 17, 2003, at 11:28 AM, Asiana Gold wrote:

Have people considered the
problem of what will happen when systems like e-gold
really take off in a big way?
Then US fedgov will demand a back door to monitor transactions, impose
various Know Your Customer and PATRIOT-related regulations, and
probably demand a cut of the action.

If these organizations end up buying a *lot* of gold it could drive
the price
up I assume, unless the supply is so huge that it
doesn't matter. I don't think it's necessarily a bad
thing, but it could then accelerate a movement away
from fiat currencies, exacerbating the problem and you
could get a kind of runaway appreciation until the
price of gold stabilizes at some level, though I don't
know what that would be.
If it actually comes to the point where it threatens the fedgov's fiat
token money, then fedgov will declare it a national emergency. This
kind of thing has been done before, and succeeded with widespread
popular support:

http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/images/2003/catalyst/
EO1933.gif

My customer has joined this list and would value your
thoughts on his question. Thank you.
Your customer should now that the US fedgov is a racket and they have
lots of drones with guns working on their behalf. They also have the
support of a compliant and easily alarmed populace with no respect for
fundamental property rights.

-- Patrick

[e-gold-list] Re: ??? september 11th, 2001 family need donations ??? SCAM ?

2003-09-13 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Saturday, September 13, 2003, at 07:13 AM, FileMatrix wrote:

The White House site is www.whitehouse.GOV

The other site seems to be an irony toward the US government.


James:

George is right.  Make sure you only donate to the official government 
sanctioned 9/11 charity run by the Red Cross.  Oh but wait -- that 
turned out to be a scam too.  Nevermind.

-- Patrick

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: More on Micropayment Failure

2003-09-13 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Saturday, September 13, 2003, at 07:16 PM, Mike McNamara wrote:

From a link that I saw on Slashdot:

http://shirky.com/writings/fame_vs_fortune.html


Also from Shirky, on a very similar subject:

http://shirky.com/writings/weblogs_publishing.html

-- Patrick

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.

[e-gold-list] Re: Anti-hacker script - important

2003-09-12 Thread Patrick Chkoreff

On Friday, September 12, 2003, at 01:13 PM, Ragnar wrote:

To all:

Please save the below script as text, with the .html extension.
Maybe, q.html.  Then activate with your browser.  This will send
fake logins to hackers/spammers that author fake e-gold sites.
Newer/updated versions of this script will be published
intermittently.   This initiative is sponsored by the Global
Digital Currencies Association.


Works great, thanks Ragnar!

-- Patrick

---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.

1 2 3 4 5 >

1 - 100 of 478 matches

Mail list logo