Homestead mailing list

[Clansgian AT wmconnect.com]

> >On the other hand, if government creates a new currency in exchange for 
> gold, it might be useful for that.
> 

They might.  This is a distinct possibiltiy.  But look what's happned every 
single time in history this has happened.

Go WAY back, for instance, to Rome's Punic wars.  During the Second Punic 
War, Rome lost control of the Campania region which supplied a great deal of 
the 
grains that fed the Republic (this was around 211 BCE).  Many disgruntle 
areas 
revolted and the economic basis of the republic collapsed.  Grain was scarce, 
there was no effective civil government to enforce the value of the currency, 
and this one of the times in history that gold became worthless.  It took 
seven years to restore the civil government to the point if felt confident 
enough 
to reissue currency and enforce its value.  By edict, all coinage had to be 
turned in to the mints and it was reissued (reminted) in a standard 
denomination, the 'denarius' (hence the Spanish word "dinero").  Individuals 
were 
prohibited from owning more than a smackeral of gold and no one but the one 
government mint was allowed to strike coins.

People who thought they'd sit on that sack of soldi coins or such and be all 
fixed up when the civil unrest was over were mightily disappointed.  They 
government took possesion of all the gold and fixed its exchange rate.

This happened here in 1933 as you will recall.

Perhaps, as they say, "better than a snowball", but it's still a risky 
business with a delayed payoff at best.


James