By Nathan Barton
Bob Livingston, a “health and wealth” expert who has been publishing a newsletter on those topics since 1969, is a respected but often denigrated writer. Recently he has been warning about the ever-increasing risk of the FedGov executing a “bale-in” to rescue the “too-big-to-fail” banks and the FedGov with its incredible debt. He also has recently penned warnings (and reassurance) about a new government confiscation of gold in private hands. This was done, of course, in 1936 by the FDR regime, in preparation for devaluing the dollar (from $20 to $35/ounce gold) and the massive borrowing and spending of the New Deal. It made the Nixon splitting of the dollar and gold completely in 1974 possible. It has been done by hundreds of governments. Mr. Livingston thinks that the bale-in (in which a special haircut of money in bank accounts (and possibly retirement accounts) slices a large fee or even everything over some certain sum (Livingston suggests $100,000) in the account is seized and “paid for” by shares in the bank or other institution (savings bonds, any one?) – shares very likely to be worthless if those institutions still do fail.
Bob Livingston makes some valid points, but I think those points are not the main thrust of his article. They are points anyone with ANY amount of gold (or even silver) should ponder.
First, government is unpredictable. They can, and do, behave without rhyme or reason, based on emotions, political motives, and lust for power. (Although BL does not mention it and may not believe it, this is because human government exists in direct and open rebellion to God, no matter what it claims.)
Second, the reasons (excuses) given by government for doing certain things are usually NOT the true reason(s) for their actions, and the objective they state (what they are supposedly trying to do) is never the true or complete one.
Third, although government (and their allies, the banks) do not NEED gold, that is not to say that they do not desire gold, and not to say that other governments do not lust after it – including those to whom huge debts are owed.
Fourth, the greatest amount of the federal government’s debt (including social security and pension debt) is held (or at least claimed) by American business and individuals. Seizure of gold and the accompanying trashing of the dollar’s remaining value cheapens, and even wipes out that debt. (When you consider that the dollar is worth only 2% of what it was worth in 1913 (before the Federal Reserve, the federal individual income tax, and of course FDR and Nixon) – and that is based on buying power – trillions in debt have already been wiped out. (Of course, by the price of gold ($1309/ounce today) the dollar is worth just 1.53% of its official value as late as 1933. And just 2.7% of what it was worth in 1974.)
The same thing could apply to the debt of state and local governments and of large businesses, with their bonds and even some types of shares. It is a strong incentive to play the FDR game yet again.
Fifth, there is always a benefit to government to make more people into criminals instantly. And to make it easy to frame people as criminals. If it is illegal to own gold – even collectable coins (and who defines what THAT is?) and possibly jewelry, dust, or tiny souvenir nuggets in little vials! – it is one more way to demonize and condemn people. We’ve seen it with guns, with ammo, even with cough medicine! The people who fail to turn in even the tiniest gold coin could and would be condemned as anti-social hoarders who demonstrate their hatred of “ordinary” Americans by their failure to do their public duty and surrender their “wealth.”
It could even be done in an indirect way: some types of gold might be legal to own only if you register and pay a fee (one time or annual) for the “privilege” of owning that gold ring or necklace or that collectible coin. One more way to extort money out of the public.
As we near the 2016 election for Massa and tens of thousands of other political offices here in the “land of the free,” everything is on the table, and as I started out writing, government (and those elected to office) are often totally unpredictable.
The potential for such irrational and even stupid actions (at least by our definition) by government is there. We must each decide for ourselves whether it is significant enough to prepare to defend ourselves.