Showing posts with label Silver coin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Silver coin. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 2, 2017

Can Germany Be Made Great Again?

Authored by Antonius Aquinas, annotated by Acting-Man.com,


When Germany Was Great!


Ever since the start of the deliberately conceived “migrant crisis,” orchestrated by NWO elites, the news out of Germany has been, to say the least, horrific. Right before the eyes of the world, a country is being demographically destroyed through a coercive plan of mass migration.  The intended consequences of this – financial strain, widespread crime and property destruction, the breakdown of German culture – will continue to worsen if things are not turned around.



 


The Holy Roman Empire in 1789 AD. At the time, Germany was a patchwork of countless independent principalities, duchies, city states, bishoprics and other statelets. This was a glorious time, as citizens could very easily vote with their feet if they were unhappy with their rulers. Keep in mind, there were no such things as “passports” or “border controls” at the time. No-one even thought about such things – it would have been considered an inane notion. And although almost every statelet minted its own coins (displaying its own coat of arms and a portrait of its ruler), money was actually standardized across the entire region since the Middle Ages. Most of Germany used silver coins, which were minted according to standardized weights and sizes (gold coins were also used, but silver was more prevalent in day-to-day commerce). Thus all coins were accepted across the region, regardless of which principality or duchy had issued them. There were no tariffs either and no restrictions on cross-border investment. There was even a mechanism for reining in fiscally highly incompetent or plain crazy rulers through a supra-national arbitration body that only sprang into action upon special request (when such requests were deemed reasonable). Taxes as a rule didn’t exceed a level of 10%, as any attempt to impose higher taxes would lead to an exodus of people from the territory concerned. Not everything was perfect of course, but let us just note that despite a lack of democracy, there was no lack of freedom. Check out some of our previous articles on this topic for additional color: “Secession – An Alternative View” and “Are Nation States Beginning to Splinter?” [PT] – click to enlarge.



Those in opposition to the societal destruction within Germany have been harassed and persecuted by the authorities and labeled with the usual epithets by the mass media: “far right,” “neo-Nazis”, “haters,” and heaven forbid, “separatists”. Because of this and other factors, no mass movement has coalesced as of yet to truly challenge the German political establishment.


Indications of a possible reversal of German fortunes, however, have come from a recent poll of Bavarians. A survey conducted by YouGov, a market research company, found that 32% of Bavarians agreed with the statement that Bavaria “should be independent from Germany.”  The percentage of secession-minded Bavarians has increased from 25% in a poll conducted in 2011. Of the around 2000 people surveyed between June 24 and July 5, most supporters of  independence come from the southern portions of the country.


Whether Bavarians or their fellow German separatists realize it or not, the only “political” solution to the migrant crisis is secession.  This is not only true for Germany, but for all Western nation states swamped with unwanted migrants.  Once free from the domination of the national government (and just as important the EU), each jurisdiction could make its own immigration policy and would be better able to control population influx at the local level.



Civilization and Prosperity Flourish in Small Political Territories 


Historically, Germany’s past has much more in common with a decentralized political landscape than with a unitary state.  From the disintegration of the Roman Empire until Napoleon wantonly abolished the Holy Roman Empire in 1806, Germany was an amalgam of different political units – kingdoms, duchies, confederacies, free cities, etc.  With no grand central state, there was considerable freedom and economic growth as each sovereign entity was largely able to conduct its affairs on its own terms.


Decentralized political power is also conducive for the advancement of culture.  Music, the highest art form, found some of its greatest expression from the German peoples.  Monumental figures of Western music were financed in large measure by German princes, kings and emperors.  Johann Sebastian Bach’s sublime Brandenburg concertos were underwritten, so to speak, by Christian Ludwig, Margrave of Brandenburg, while Beethoven received support from Archduke Rudolph.  Mozart was funded by no lesser figure than the Austrian emperor himself, Joseph II.




Famous composers and their patrons – from left to right: Johann Sebastian Bach and his financier Christian Ludwig, Margrave of Brandenburg; Ludwig van Beethoven and his patron Archduke Rudolph of Austria, the Archbishop of Olomouc (who died in 1831 at age 43 just one year after Beethoven passed away – not to be confused with the later Archduke Rudolf, the crown prince who killed himself and his lover Baroness Vetsera at the Mayerling hunting lodge in 1889); Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and his biggest fan and supporter Emperor Joseph II of Austria. Great artists, outstanding intellectuals and scientists were as a rule supported by members of the elites at the time, who either paid them stipends or commissioned specific works. It is worth noting that the achievements of these artists and intellectuals have generally stood the test of time, which seems highly unlikely to happen with most of the dreck funded by the State in modern times. [PT]



Political decentralization provides an important mechanism as a check on state power.  A multitude of governments prevents individual state aggrandizement as oppressed populations can “vote with their feet” and move to safer and less repressive regimes.  A unitary state, or just a few, throughout the world would negate such an advantage.


Naturally, if nation states are a constant threat to the liberties and economic well being of their citizens, global organizations and states are that much more of a danger and should always and everywhere be opposed.  The European Union, largely based on the principles of the US Constitution, has pressured nations under its sway, such as Germany, to accept the migrants and has threatened members such as Hungary and Poland with penalties if they refuse to contribute their fair share.


The empirical evidence with regard to political decentralization and economic growth is overwhelming.  Since the level of taxation and government regulation are crucial factors in an economy’s ability to produce, the limits on taxation and government oversight tend to be significantly lower if there are numerous states, since there would be ample opportunities for producers to set up shop in areas more conducive to their efforts.




A truly depressing record: today only five countries in the world are considered economically free according to the Heritage Economic Freedom Index (another 28 are in the “mostly free” category). Not even one country has a perfect score of 100. You will notice that the top five include only one large territory, namely Australia – which just about makes the cut with a score of 81 points; moreover, it is a sparsely populated place with a population of only ~24 million people. The two territories considered most free are city states, and the next two are tiny countries. For some reason Heritage didn’t rank a number of smaller countries and city states such as Andorra, Liechtenstein or Monaco. If it had, they would be in the top five, replacing the countries currently ranked 3 to 5. The countries with high economic freedom scores are the most prosperous places on the planet, which is of course no coincidence. Citizens of other countries who are not part of the political elites and their politically well-connected cronies must of course wonder why these success stories are not emulated everywhere in the world. They should also ask themselves what is worth more to them: that their rulers are able to “throw their weight around on the international stage” (one of the reasons for which people in Europe are supposed to support the socialist superstate wet dreams of the EU’s political and bureaucratic elites), or their personal freedom. It is worth noting that several of the countries with high economic freedom scores are not considered sufficiently democratic; in other words, the ability of citizens to choose which gang of criminals waving a flag should boss them around and rob them for the next several years is limited. We happen to think it’s more important that those in power do as little bossing around as possible. In fact, people should not even worry about who is going to sit on the throne, they should focus on simply abolishing the throne instead. Unfortunately it is quite difficult to deprogram the serfs, but one can always hope. We are actually convinced that Statism will wither away at some point in the future and be replaced by societies based on voluntarism. [PT]



This can be seen in the US as thousands of oppressed businesses and firms have left California to lower tax and less restrictive climes such as Texas and Nevada.


If Germany is ever to get a handle on the migrant crisis before the country is completely dismembered demographically, its only hope is to return to its decentralized political roots.  Let Bavaria lead the way!

Saturday, March 18, 2017

Demand For Physical Gold Is Collapsing

Authored by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,


I serve on the Board of Directors of a large Singapore-based company that’s in the gold and silver business.


And, last night during our quarterly conference call, the management team gave me a lot of intriguing information.


Sales of physical gold and silver are collapsing across the entire industry.


At the US Mint, for example, sales of US Eagle gold coins fell by 67% between February 2016 versus February 2017.


And sales of US Eagle silver coins are down 75% over the same period.


The World Gold Council’s data also shows a substantial decline in physical precious metal demand in 2016, particularly with bars, coins, and jewelry.


Suppliers and refiners in the precious metals business are echoing these numbers, lamenting that sales are extremely slow and margins are falling.


For our Singapore company, this decline is irrelevant.


They have their own proprietary, state-of-the-art storage facility and a number of cutting-edge service like bullion-backed peer-to-peer loans, so business is great.


But I would expect that a number of other bullion dealers will probably go bust if this downturn lasts much longer.


The one conundrum is that this trend does NOT correlate with the price of gold.


In US dollar terms, the gold price is up 16% since the beginning of 2016.


So it would be reasonable to conclude that sales of physical bars and coins are up as well.


But they’re not.


The reason is because there’s a HUGE difference between physical gold and “paper” gold.



When people talk about the gold price, they’re really quoting the price of gold contracts at exchanges around the world in London, Shanghai, Chicago, etc.


Traders aren’t actually buying and selling physical gold.


These gold contracts are merely paper financial instruments, like stocks and bonds, that traders use for speculation.


When some conflict breaks out in Africa, the knee-jerk reaction is for traders to buy gold contracts.


And when central bankers announce that the economy is totally awesome, traders dutifully dump their gold contracts.


But they’re really just buying and selling highly leveraged paper assets. Nothing physical changes hands.


It’s the same with gold ETFs; these are merely financial instruments to gamble on the paper price of gold.


Investors who truly understand the benefits of owning gold, and don’t simply want to speculate on the price, buy physical bars and coins from a dealer.


And quite often there’s a massive difference in fundamentals between the demand for physical coins and the paper price.


During the 2008 financial meltdown, the paper price of gold and silver plunged.


Speculators and traders were hit by margin calls and forced to sell their contracts.


But demand for physical coins was incredibly strong; savvy investors were looking for a safe haven.


There was a total disconnect between the paper price and physical demand.


That’s now happening again, but in reverse. The paper price is rising, but physical demand is falling.


Management told me last night that they’ve been invited to speak at several investment conferences attended by family offices and high net worth individuals.


But they told me that there’s very little interest in owning physical precious metals among these wealthy investors.


Everyone seems to want to dump all of their money in US stocks or real estate, expecting that they’ll easily make 20% despite both markets being at all-time highs.


This strikes me as total madness. Few people ever prospered buying what was popular and expensive.


There seems to be no fear in the market… no regard for sense or safety.


And my contrarian instincts tell me that this complacency is a great reason to own physical gold and silver right now.


Remember that gold is primarily a form of savings.


You could hold your savings in a bank account, denominated in paper currency like dollars or euros or renminbi.


Or you could hold savings in physical cash. You could even own government bonds.


Each of these is a form of savings.


But so is gold and silver. (And cryptocurrency, for that matter.)


The difference is that gold and silver cannot be conjured out of thin air by a central bank.


And unlike cash, or money in a bank, precious metals actually keep pace with inflation over time.


I remember having a conversation once with a famous investor who told me that he didn’t know what was going to happen in the future…


… and THAT’S why he owned gold– for the “I don’t knows.”


Will there be a trade war with China in the next few years? A shooting war? A major debt crisis? Another terrorist attack? “I don’t know.”


Gold and silver are fantastic insurance policies against the “I don’t knows” due to the metals’ 5,000 year history of value and marketability.


There’s no need to go overboard and keep 100% of your net worth in precious metals.


But given the obvious risks on the horizon that we discuss regularly, and these bizarre demand trends, it’s a great time to consider adding to your physical precious metals savings.


Do you have a Plan B?

Tuesday, January 3, 2017

Currency & The Collapse Of The Roman Empire

At its peak, the Roman Empire held up to 130 million people over a span of 1.5 million square miles. Rome had conquered much of the known world. The Empire built 50,000 miles of roads, as well as many aqueducts, amphitheatres, and other works that are still in use today. Our alphabet, calendar, languages, literature, and architecture borrow much from the Romans. Even concepts of Roman justice still stand tall, such as being “innocent until proven guilty”. And so, as Visual Capitalist"s Jeff Desjardins asks (and answers): How could such a powerful empire collapse?






The Roman Economy


Trade was vital to Rome. It was trade that allowed a wide variety of goods to be imported into its borders: beef, grains, glassware, iron, lead, leather, marble, olive oil, perfumes, purple dye, silk, silver, spices, timber, tin and wine.


Trade generated vast wealth for the citizens of Rome. However, the city of Rome itself had only 1 million people, and costs kept rising as the empire became larger.


Administrative, logistical, and military costs kept adding up, and the Empire found creative new ways to pay for things.


Along with other factors, this led to hyperinflation, a fractured economy, localization of trade, heavy taxes, and a financial crisis that crippled Rome.


Roman Debasement


The major silver coin used during the first 220 years of the empire was the denarius.


This coin, between the size of a modern nickel and dime, was worth approximately a day’s wages for a skilled laborer or craftsman. During the first days of the Empire, these coins were of high purity, holding about 4.5 grams of pure silver.


However, with a finite supply of silver and gold entering the empire, Roman spending was limited by the amount of denarii that could be minted.


This made financing the pet-projects of emperors challenging. How was the newest war, thermae, palace, or circus to be paid for?


Roman officials found a way to work around this. By decreasing the purity of their coinage, they were able to make more “silver” coins with the same face value. With more coins in circulation, the government could spend more. And so, the content of silver dropped over the years.


By the time of Marcus Aurelius, the denarius was only about 75% silver. Caracalla tried a different method of debasement. He introduced the “double denarius”, which was worth 2x the denarius in face value. However, it had only the weight of 1.5 denarii. By the time of Gallienus, the coins had barely 5% silver. Each coin was a bronze core with a thin coating of silver. The shine quickly wore off to reveal the poor quality underneath.


The Consequences


The real effects of debasement took time to materialize.


Adding more coins of poorer quality into circulation did not help increase prosperity – it just transferred wealth away from the people, and it meant that more coins were needed to pay for goods and services.


At times, there was runaway inflation in the empire. For example, soldiers demanded far higher wages as the quality of coins diminished.


“Nobody should have any money but I, so that I may bestow it upon the soldiers.” – Caracalla, who raised soldiers pay by 50% near 210 AD.


By 265 AD, when there was only 0.5% silver left in a denarius, prices skyrocketed 1,000% across the Roman Empire.
Only barbarian mercenaries were to be paid in gold.


The Effects


With soaring logistical and admin costs and no precious metals left to plunder from enemies, the Romans levied more and more taxes against the people to sustain the Empire.


Hyperinflation, soaring taxes, and worthless money created a trifecta that dissolved much of Rome’s trade.
The economy was paralyzed.


By the end of the 3rd century, any trade that was left was mostly local, using inefficient barter methods instead of any meaningful medium of exchange.


The Collapse


During the crisis of the 3rd century (235-284 A.D), there may have been more than 50 emperors. Most of these were murdered, assassinated, or killed in battle.


The empire was in a free-for-all, and it split into three separate states.


Constant civil wars meant the Empire’s borders were vulnerable. Trade networks were disintegrated and such activities became too dangerous.


Barbarian invasions came in from every direction. Plague was rampant.


And so the Western Roman Empire would cease to exist by 476 A.D.


*  *  *


The Money Project is an ongoing collaboration between Visual Capitalist and Texas Precious Metals that seeks to use intuitive visualizations to explore the origins, nature, and use of money.