How will we physically trade gold & silver at $5000 & $500?

Very interesting, Shelby. Thanks

After the initial failure in California, success was obtained in the more Biblical Tennessee:

http://silverstockreport.com/2009/road.html


Read the above link. The below is my prior post.

Shelby wrote:

Shelby wrote:See the prior post also in this thread that I made some months ago.

Hommel usually ends up figuring out what I write about, about 6 - 18 months after I write it. I have so many examples already. I won't re-enumerate.

In any case, Hommel still thinks that physical silver will come back as money in USA:

http://silverstockreport.com/2009/logistics.html


I disagree, because 50+% of the population doesn't want it. They want the govt to take care of them, they don't want to go backwards to a physical economy. People don't change that fast. The cabal will provide a new system for them, with a digitally (credit card) backed Amero. The remaining middle class will pay for it via taxation and insideous forms (not overt) confiscation/controls.

If silver came back to USA in general, it would be after a long period of suffering in communism. The masses would have to capitulate to utter failure after years of govt theft from the "haves".

So silver as money, is not something that is going to quickly come. And by the time the masses are ready to capitulate, the cabal will have offer an Amero solution and a new world system backed by gold...

...USA and Mexico will be joined, this will be a big growth market...

...A wildcard in my current thinking is the propensity of Mexico (and latin america) to use silver as money?

SUBJECT: Potentially largest untapped market for bullion buyers in USA

Jason, here is one parting gift of an idea, because I want to share "God bless you" with an action. This has been on my mind for past weeks.

Americans bought 1.5 BILLION rounds of ammunition in December 2008, in just 3 months Americans bought enough guns to outfit the entire Chinese and Indian armies combined:

http://www.infowars.com/in-just-3-months-americans-bought-enough-guns-to-outfit-the-entire-chinese-and-indian-armies-combined/

I have read there are 3 million Americans who are hard-core gun owners (you can pry their gun from their cold dead hand only).


If they indeed plan to fight the US govt, (which I think is inevitable because TPTB are determined to destroy the US dollar within next 3 years or less), then you might be able to explain to them that they will also need something to use as money (as the dollar will be in chaos) while they are fighting. Using bits of gold shot (or other non-fungible, perishable, bulky barter goods) won't be practical for every day barter, so durable silver coins of various demonimations is going to be in high demand in that scenario.

I think most of them are of the INSULAR pyschology to buy gold (not so mch silver), stock up on food, and defend their home space. They don't want to build trade, while they are fighting. Thus by definition, from the start of their fight, TPTB will have won with the oldest strategy of war (divide-and-conquer), as without growing trade, they will wither away and the masses won't be inspired to join them (masses are cows who follow who can fatten them). Telling them not to prepare to fight is counter-productive to their base pyschology (impossible to convince). However, selling the idea that they will need to build their own barter economies to compete with TPTB's raping plans, may strike a chord.

If they are stockpiling ammunition, they should be stockpiling silver in small coins form, to be prepared to spend it into their communities (for more ammunition! or food or to hire more fighters or build factories...) in order to stimulate commerce during the time the govt will be trying to stimulate people to move into cities to accept socialism and dole outs and the govt will be hiring people to fight/regulate the gun activits (and regulate/steal from just about every business activity). The gun activists can't win nor defend their rights defensively with ammunition alone. They will need to have an economic defense as well.

Tangentially, TPTB are very happy that Americans prefer to buy 99.9% instead of 90%, because the former is useless are a durable barter coin. The 99.9% is useful for melting for industry, but it will wear too fast if used in giving change in a genuine barter economy. It people are going to resort to trading worn blobs of silver, then imagine that giving change will involve scales, acid tests, etc...not something the masses are going to want to emulate, and easy for TPTB to outcompete with an Amero alternative (backed by SDRs that include a basket of gold, as China has proposed).

The final point is the real kicker. I believe they will never have to fight if they buy more silver than ammunition. The reason is the because TPTB only want the chaos of fight, if it will mean the gun activists will help destroy the economy with fighting and chaos. But if they gun activists have the economic silver to launch a better economy while they fight, TPTB will quickly change directions and decide to compete and avoid losing control to a more competive economy.

NO ONE IS COMPETING WITH THT TPTB ON SUFFICIENT SCALE. And this is precisely why they can still see benefits of further chaos.

There was talk at the Bilderberg meeting about how far to take this chaos (http://www.infowars.com/the-bilderberg-plan-for-2009-remaking-the-global-political-economy/), so TPTB are well aware of the potential for competition, but so far that competition is nil within the USA. The people are buying guns instead, which is perfect for the TPTB.

I am NOT saying the gun activists will be receptive to the idea of silver as money. I am saying that they are walking into a trap otherwise, and they have the most propensity to understand the utility to their cause. If they can't be convinced, then 1% of the population can never be. This explains why I am not convinced about "silver is money". There is no group in USA that wants (nor will want, TPTB will make sure they offer alternatives) to move back to silver coin money system.

You may not digest my theory here with the same perspective I have (not because you lack ability to understand, but because I may not have explained it in a way that rings a bell in your current thinking), as I don't have time to write up all the nuances of my thinking on this. So I leave it at that.

ADD: in fact the reason it could kill "open source" is because it will enable a finer granularity of contribution and cooperation that is monetized to the individual, not to the group!!

EUREKA! Figured out how to created a legal digital gold currency! The momentum is already underway.

The main problem with GoldMoney.com, and all the precious metals backed digital currencies ideas I had previously explored (in this thread and before that), is they run afoul of the Patriot Act, Anti-Money Laundering (AML) laws, Money Services laws, and in general the govt's regulation of their legal tender monopoly. GoldMoney's adoption rate is pathetic in terms of the order-of-magnitude needed to compete with legal tender, primarily because there is no motivation (need or demand) for using it as a currency due to inconvenience and other limitations of ways it could otherwise potentially be used, due the strict regulation. Read to the bottom to understand what I mean with examples for a better way.

I am working a new technology for creating software from cooperation. Perhaps you know that the Open Source model is changing the world (internet would not exist without it), and the motivations for sharing are to gain the widest reliability ("given enough eyeballs all bugs are shallow"), longevity (no secret IP, i.e. access to 3rd party foundations of your derivative works), interaction, acceptance, and popularity (among programmers) of your work. But actually open source is the wrong model. We actually need "closed source" with "open and maximally granular interfaces" and then competition between interfaces. The open source movement prospered because it achieved some of that, but in the wrong way, which is why it is stagnating with the peak of socialism in the world. I have the solution already figured out.

The yet incomplete fulfillment of open source's potential, as it is currently practiced with contribution to large monolithic projects (shippable products, e.g. Firefox, Linux, Apache web-server, MySQL database, PHP/Perl/Python/Javascript programming languages, etc. that powers most websites), is that compensation for contribution can only be profitable by selling expertise and/or a product which is differentiated from the freely available version. And (most) open source code bases are not designed to broken into smaller portions and composed in myriad of ways. And contributing to open source has a huge learning curve (up front cost) to become familiar with the huge source code bases. Thus the profit models are collective (socialism), i.e. you contribute to open source because your employer (even if you employ yourself) pays you to be an expert in the open source project (technology), because the returns on open source are indirect and thus requires economy-of-scale to harvest. I wrote more astutely about the model of open source and my goals (you must read this -->) in Nov. 2008 (start reading at "Agreed for small enough programs..." about 1/4 down the page).

I am creating some new technologies (new programming language (my 1st!), application virtual machine, distributed P2P resource system, etc) that will make it much easier for programmers to write small code modules that are composable, and to share them. The motivations, for sharing them without direct compensation, are mentioned in the second paragraph above. Additionally, I think it should be possible to help to provide economy-of-scale to monetize this cross-sharing (via distributed code repository, but I will not explain all the details now). The increased monetization efficiency should win against the current less granular open source collective models.

So imagine an explosion of new stuff on the internet due to exponential more code collaboration (re-use), i.e. instead of 10 modifications of Firefox and 1000 Firebox addons with 1 billion downloads so far (proof that diverse derivations is more efficient and will explode), we instead should get 10,000+ code fragments combined in 10,000x1000 = 10 million products with 1000 billion (i.e. trillion) downloads. Then imagine each of these collaborators is receiving payment from each other for the code they are mutually cross-sharing (probably with per user or download tracking at the code repositories). If you think that is unlikely, I suggest you watch this short video to open your eyes to what is already happening!

The key epiphany is that these collaborators could be accumulating credits (promises to pay from the other collaborators), but they won't cash these out immediately because they will have to deduct from these credits what they must pay to the other collaborators. Although it would be possible to settle the credit offsets instantly as they occur, it would still be necessary to maintain some balance in one's account, since otherwise they would be offering credit to each other when one's balance was overdrawn, and that would thus be the same as the prior sentence. Well that would be the case at least for those who do not always earn more credits than they consume. Also people might decide to hold these balances given they know they are remunerated in precious metals.

So thus the units of these credits would be some micro unit of physical precious metals. These could be cashed out in fiat (i.e. check, paypal, wire, etc). Thus the credits would be a digitally precious metal backed currency, initially only for the purchase of programming collaboration on a huge "global population as customers" scale. I suppose then others who offer to cash these out in actual precious metals, but that is just details. I want to move on to discuss the legal aspects.

Prior legal research is here:

http://goldwetrust.up-with.com/precious-metals-f6/how-will-we-physically-trade-gold-silver-at-5000-500-t61-90.htm#824

My idea above would not run afoul of AML, because there is no way to directly purchase credits, so there is no way to launder or transfer (from one entity to the other) money from outside the system. Credits will be earned from customers in aggregated (automated, like iTunes 99 cents per song) micro-payments, so it would be difficult (if not impossible) for someone to purchase significant value of credits without being detected statistically. Customers will be shown prices in their fiat of choice.

Collaborators that a have a negative balance of credits, would have to settle directly with the collaborators owed (another motivation for them to not withdraw balances, and/or we could help automate via integration with Paypal). Thus afaik, the service would not have to register as a money services or transfer business, or if it did then only as a reseller, not as highly regulated money transfer like Paypal. There is nothing illegal or highly regulated about pricing software products in units of precious metals, and reselling software products for vendors.

Customers do not pay for large open source software like Firefox, but they do pay for addons, and by selling software addons China's social networks are achieving 2x (on PPP adjusted basis) more revenue per user than Facebook, MySpace, Friendster which rely only on ad revenues.

China has cracked down on the very successful online gaming virtual currencies, restricting conversion to real goods or Yuan. So imagine that China's govt did this to my proposed currency above, then Chinese could subvert the govt regulation by trading the credits within the system and never withdraw in fiat, and then conduct the real goods exchange external to the system. Even if our system did not allow exchanging credits (a possible regulation China might demand), users could create multiple accounts and trade the accounts. If China demanded that the accounts be verified and only one account per human, then users could simply build an external system (possibly even P2P distributed anonymous, or even manual if necessary) that traded the credits in their accounts (without the credits actually moving between accounts, it would be a bookkeeping entry in the external system). In short, there is no way for the govt to stop people from trading things. Again the govt could not attack our legitimate business of selling software, as that can not be an input conduit for money laundering, nor would any money transfer (other than a normal reseller business of collecting micro-payments from diverse customers). Not to mention that there is no reason my system has to be physically within China where they can regulate it, except on the collection side from customers. But if the Chinese are the programmers and not the consumers, then the system can be entirely outside of China and such programmers (12,000 of them would only be 1 in 100,000 people) would be adept at circumventing any govt attempts at blocking access (impossible to block access on the internet, just use a concealing/cloaking proxy).

I think it is important to understand that digital efficiency is the only way to compete with the legal tender monopoly, which may just be giving us a little physical metal rope to hang ourselves with.

Here are a few more links on that. Nearly an entire page from this post to this post, then this one also. Lastly this one.


I am busy programming. Will hear more from me about this when there is something up and running.