I mean how would they actually enforce this? I'm assuming they would have access to records of what you may have purchased.. But, I mean how would they enforce this measure over the populace. Wouldn't people flee en masse or at least place their gold abroad in order to circumvent this?
I mean I don't see many people giving in to this besides the statist sympathizer who would accept this act hook,line, and sinker.
One needs only look to 1933 for your answer.
http://www.usagold.com/publications/confiscation2006.pdf
Client Memorandum
How You Can Survive a Potential Gold Confiscation
Knight_of_BAAWA: One needs only look to 1933 for your answer.
This includes the Nazi party as well right? Not just Roosevelt.
In one word no.
I don't hope that they seize gold again, but if they do, I know my gold (that I will never surrender) will be worth much, much more.
Read my Nolan Chart column "Me & My Big Mouth"
McDuffie: I don't hope that they seize gold again, but if they do, I know my gold (that I will never surrender) will be worth much, much more.
Actually, no, and that's the problem with the illegalization of gold.Gold as an investment product loses a lot of its use value if the trading process is limited to black market exchanges. In a statist society, the possibility of getting screwed on the black market is just so much higher because you cannot rely on the indirect threat of state courts. Once you have to meet Bubba and his gang down at the creek to do gold trading, it will become unattractive.As a consequence, people would short their gold as long as they can and put their money into other, more politically correct commodities, such as stocks or housing.If you do not believe me, ask yourself these questions: if gold was illegal, who would you sell to? At what price? And at what personal and financial risk? You get the idea.Now, if there will be a considerable agorist network up and running before the illegalization of gold, the situation may be different. But that is unlikely.Edit: Conza's PDF also contains information on the subject:
Others simply hid their gold. If they were caught, they faced the tough penalties mentioned above. Furthermore, it appears that there was not much to be gained by keeping the gold. There was no black market. There was no secondary market. And even if there would have been, the price was fixed by the government. The government filled all the gaps and closed all the loopholes. There was nothing to do but turn it in.
Hmmm....
This is what I love/hate about economics: what seems like common sense, turns out to be wrong.
How about the men and women that held their gold/silver with the eventual hopes that it would one day become legal again?
Wouldn't it be worth it long-term?
Sphairon:As a consequence, people would short their gold as long as they can and put their money into other, more politically correct commodities, such as stocks or housing.
Libertardians continue to wonder why they are considered ideologues.
This is easy, yes it would be worth it but men with guns will come to take your gold. Deposit box holders in the 1930s had agents accompany them to their boxes to check for gold. They will also come to your home and check as well.
Remember the Bill of Rights is limited to what bureaucrats in black robes says it is.
There's no need for circular proofs here, scineram. Expound upon your claims, there's no point in spewing invectives and then just disappearing.
Let's hear your take on this matter please.
scineram: Libertardians continue to wonder why they are considered ideologues.
If you found any factual errors in my statement, please do not leave me in the dark about them.
Sphairon:If you do not believe me, ask yourself these questions: if gold was illegal, who would you sell to? At what price? And at what personal and financial risk? You get the idea.
I haven't really made up my mind on which way the price of gold would go, so I'm not arguing a position here -- but are you suggesting that the street price of a legalized ounce of cocaine would actually go UP ?
Z.
z1235: I haven't really made up my mind on which way the price of gold would go, so I'm not arguing a position here -- but are you suggesting that the street price of a legalized ounce of cocaine would actually go UP ?
The incentive for buying gold is entirely different from the motivation to buy drugs.Drugs derive their value from the pleasure of consuming them. This pleasure exists regardless of legality, in fact, illegality may even increase it. Thus, people will, to an individual extent, tolerate the insecurity of a black market as long as they can still receive drug pleasure.Gold is appreciated as a hedge against inflation, a form of currency-like investment. But investments which cannot be liquidated are less attractive; that's why 30-year treasury bills pay higher interest than one month bills. Illegalization basically takes away redeemability from an investment. Unless there is a considerable black market / agorist trading network in which gold plays a major role, it loses its utility almost entirely, and thus its price/value tanks.
Sphairon:Illegalization basically takes away redeemability from an investment. Unless there is a considerable black market / agorist trading network in which gold plays a major role, it loses its utility almost entirely, and thus its price/value tanks.
I see your point. So gold is used as a currency for future exchanges (which if made illegal would hurt its value as an exchange instrument) while cocaine is mostly consumed for pleasure after purchase.
You may be neglecting a very important aspect of gold ownership though. The state would likely make it illegal when it's being financially pushed against the wall (the world snubs the dollar) and under a significant risk of collapsing. With the risk of collapse increasing it MAY be worthwhile holding onto your gold or even seeking to accumulate more even at the risk of legal prosecution. After all, the MAIN use for gold through centuries has not been protection against inflation but protection of one's wealth during violent and unpredictable regime shifts. This would tend to make gold more desirable, thus more valuable. It will be the balance between these two opposing forces (illiquidity due to illegality vs. wealth preservation during a calamity) that would decide which way the price of gold would go. Price would definitely be volatile and proportional to the perceived probability of collapse, but I would tend to think that wealth preservation would trump illiquidity and the price would go up a lot over time.