Actually, a dollar has to do with weight in silver, not gold.Originally Posted by ManOntheLand
Actually, a dollar has to do with weight in silver, not gold.
While this was true initially, it is no longer so. On March 14, 1900 the U.S. adopted a gold standard (exclusively) for the dollar.
Touché.
But has not the gold standard been abrogated in the U.S.?
Last edited by shikamaru; 07-01-13 at 07:32 PM.
Yes and no. Notes may no longer be redeemed for gold. However a dollar is still defined in federal law as a weight of gold. This is why I believe it is fraud for the U.S. to use the word dollar on its notes.
Interesting to note that 1971 was the year in which FRN's were taken off the gold standard for foreign redeemers of FRN's (of course Americans have not been able to redeem FRN's for gold since 1933).
1971 was also the year the Treasury stopped putting new United States Notes into circulation. Coincidence? I think not. I think U.S. probably knows it would be fraud to use the word dollar on new notes being issued while at the same time refusing to back the "dollar" note by a dollar weight of gold. By stopping circulation of new notes, they technically avoid actual fraud. (I guess).
U.S. Notes already in circulation have acquired some numismatic value due to their relative rarity, so I guess it would be hard to claim damages if you have U.S. notes, as you can probably get more than the face value from a collector or you can use them as currency if you choose.
But this lack of a practical alternative to using FRN's is exactly why a remedy must be provided for you in law. Otherwise you might have a legitimate cause of action in court. And a court case about this stuff would threaten to expose the whole scam. The system legally protects itself by providing a remedy. Then, as a practical matter, the system protects itself from the remedy it was obligated to provide, by trying to keep the populace unaware of the remedy.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote