The Greatest Thinkers Knew Gold Is Real, Paper isn’t worth the paper it is printed on!

Thomas Jefferson (portrait by Rembrandt Peale)

What if the gold standard is not an antique but, rather, a “timeless classic” (as termed in a speech by Bundesbank President Jens Weidmann in September 2012)?  High tech guru George Gilder deploys cutting-edge science to show why this is so, based on Shannon information theory. Gilder’s analysis is neither eccentric nor anomalous.

The intellectual pedigree of the classical gold standard runs through two of the greatest scientists in history: Copernicus and Newton. Nicolas Copernicus, in his Essay on the Minting of Money eloquently lays out the scientific foundations of the classical gold standard. (Full disclosure, I served as co-editor of a modern translation, by classicist Gerald Malsbary, published by Laissez Faire Books and recently republished by Cognella as part of a splendid compilation of source documents in classical economics in The Monetary Foundations of the Macroeconomy Volume 1 edited by Thomas Rustici, James Caton, Dima Shamoun, and Ted Shamoun).

Sir Isaac Newton, as Master of the Royal Mint of Great Britain, created what became the modern classical gold standard. This was a fact well known by President Jefferson, as astutely noted by Dr. Judy Shelton in erudite commentary to her definitive edition of Jefferson’s Notes on the Establishment of A Monetary Unit. Under the Newtonian gold standard, with variants, the world economy thrived for almost 200 years.

The gold standard also was one of the few things that both Jefferson, and his arch-rival in Washington’s cabinet, Alexander Hamilton, fully agreed. The gold standard’s intellectual provenance, both in deep scientific history and among the founders of America, really is impeccable.

BUILD YOUR GOLD SAFETY NET AT abundantgoldmine.com

Copernicus and Newton, of course, are figures from the deep past. Jefferson, slightly more contemporary, was extolled by President Kennedy at a dinner honoring Nobel Prize winners when he greeted them as “the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered together at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.”

Copernicus and Newton, timeless classics, remain appropriately revered as two of the greatest members of the scientific pantheon. Their discoveries — Heliocentricity, and the Three Laws of Motion — remain central to science. Old does not equal atavistic.  Now let’s get modern.

It is less paradoxical than might superficially appear that George Gilder comes forward to exalt the scientific foundations of the classical gold standard. Gilder does so by drawing deeply upon modern Shannon information theory, work foundational to the high tech revolution very much alive and well.

So, a leading high-tech public intellectual attests to the ultra-modernity of the gold standard. Gilder, also known as the living author most quoted by President Reagan, went on to high tech iconic thought leader status as the author of Microcosm, Telecosm, The Silicon Eye, and Knowledge and Power among other highly-regarded works.

Gilder now presents a brilliant monograph, The 21st Century Case for Gold: A New Information Theory of Money. In it he explores at greater depth some of the thoughts he first broached in a key chapter of his influential Knowledge and Power. The 21st Century Case for Gold: A New Information Theory of Money was commissioned by the American Principles Project (whose sister organization I professionally advise).  He therein explodes the pernicious myth of the gold standard as an atavism.

In 106 lucid pages, Gilder magisterially demystifies money. A very few choice excerpts:

The economy is not fundamentally an incentive system, it is an information system. Manipulating money cannot create growth, and it distorts the information economic actors need to acquire the learning that alone is wealth-creation.

Growth in wealth stems . . . from the progress of learning. It is accomplished by entrepreneurs conducting falsifiable experiments of enterprise, with the outcomes measurable by reliable money.”

Claude Shannon “resolved that all information is most essentially surprise. Unless messages are unexpected, they do not convey new information.” But “[i]f a carrier is to bear surprising contents, it must itself be unsurprising.” That is what makes it possible to distinguish the signal from the noise.

In economics money is part of the conduit or carrier. If money is to foster learning and knowledge, it cannot itself be surprising. . . . money must be the measure, rather than what is measured.”

Gilder is unusual, but not unique, among tech leaders in his regard for gold. No less than Peter Thiel in an interview observed:

If you really wanted to create an alternate currency, it would have to be gold-based,” he says. “There are enough people who already believe in gold that you could probably get it to the tipping point. Starting completely from scratch is a lot harder to do. I have a lot more thoughts, but I’d say—you probably want to go with gold.”

     GET YOUR GOLD AT  http://abundantgoldmine.com   or call 928-925-8506

In the hands of Copernicus, Newton, and Shannon as channeled by Gilder, money becomes simple and intuitive.  Gilder gives us the real thing: science. In The 21st Century Case for Gold: A New Information Theory of Money, George Gilder, true to his title, lays out a compelling 21st century case for the gold standard. Gilder reveals anew the gold standard’s deep scientific foundation. Buy a copy on old fashioned paper in better bookstores everywhere or download it and read it.

Delight in a very modern, scientific, demystification of money and discussion of why the classical gold standard repeatedly has proved itself beneficial.   With The 21st Century Case for Gold: A New Information Theory of Money George Gilder well may have delivered his next game changer.

 

Originating at Forbes.com
Read more at http://affluentinvestor.com/2015/07/copernicus-newton-jefferson-hamilton-and-gilder-on-the-gold-standard/#XGRL9DamRmxxRvA3.99

`What’s Changed Since the Marines Defeated the Muslims at “the shores of Tripoli.”

  • Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja had answered that Islam “was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

 

The barbarians are still at the gate!

Subject: “Shores of Tripoli” Nothing like a little fresher note from history to remind us how little things have changed!

Why the Marine Hymn Contains the Verse “To the Shores of Tripoli” Muslim pirates of the past:

Americans are unaware of the fact that over two hundred years ago, the United States had declared war on Islam, and Thomas Jefferson led the charge! 

At the height of the eighteenth century, Muslim pirates were the terror of the Mediterranean and a large area of the North Atlantic.

They attacked every ship in sight, and held the crews for exorbitant ransoms. Those taken hostage were subjected to barbaric treatment and wrote heart breaking letters home, begging their government and family members to pay whatever their Mohammedan captors demanded.
These extortionists of the high seas represented the Islamic nations of Tripoli, Tunis, Morocco, and Algiers – collectively referred to as the Barbary Coast – and presented a dangerous and unprovoked threat to the new American Republic.
Before the Revolutionary War, U.S. Merchant ships had been under the protection of Great Britain. When the U.S. Declared its independence and entered into war, the ships of the United States were protected by France. However, once the war was won, America had to protect its own fleets.
Thus, the birth of the U.S. Navy. Beginning in 1784, seventeen years before he would become president, Thomas Jefferson became America’s Minister to France. That same year, the U.S. Congress sought to appease its Muslim adversaries by following in the footsteps of European nations who paid bribes to the Barbary States, rather than engaging them in war.
In July of 1785, Algerian pirates captured American ships, and the Dye of Algiers demanded an unheard ransom of $60,000. It was a plain and simple case of extortion, and Thomas Jefferson was vehemently opposed to any further payments. Instead, he proposed to Congress the formation of a coalition of allied nations who together could force the Islamic states into peace. A disinterested Congress decided to pay the ransom.
In 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams met with Tripoli’s ambassador to Great Britain to ask by what right his nation attacked American ships and enslaved American citizens, and why Muslims held so much hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.
The two future presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja had answered that Islam “was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”
Despite this stunning admission of premeditated violence on non-Muslim nations, as well as the objections of many notable American leaders, including George Washington, who warned that caving in was both wrong and would only further embolden the enemy, for the following fifteen years, the American government paid the Muslims millions of dollars for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. The payments in ransom and tribute amounted to over twenty percent of the United States government annual revenues in 1800.
Jefferson was disgusted. Shortly after his being sworn in as the third President of the United States in 1801, the Pasha of Tripoli sent him a note demanding the immediate payment of $225,000 plus $25,000 a year for every year forthcoming. That changed everything. 
Jefferson let the Pasha know, in no uncertain terms, what he could do with his demand. The Pasha responded by cutting down the flagpole at the American consulate and declared war on the United States. Tunis, Morocco, and Algiers immediately followed suit. Jefferson, until now, had been against America raising a naval force for anything beyond coastal defense, but having watched his nation be cowed by Islamic thugery for long enough, decided that is was finally time to meet force with force.
He dispatched a squadron of frigates to the Mediterranean and taught the Muslim nations of the Barbary Coast a lesson he hoped they would never forget. Congress authorized Jefferson to empower U.S. Ships to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli and to “cause to be done all other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war would justify.”
When Algiers and Tunis, who were both accustomed to American cowardice and acquiescence, saw the newly independent United States had both the will and the might to strike back, they quickly abandoned their allegiance to Tripoli. The war with Tripoli lasted for four more years, and raged up again in 1815. The bravery of the U.S. Marine Corps in these wars led to the line “to the shores of Tripoli” in the Marine Hymn, and they would forever be known as “leathernecks” for the leather collars of their uniforms, designed to prevent their heads from being cut off by the Muslim scimitars when boarding enemy ships.
Islam, and what its Barbary followers justified doing in the name of their prophet and their god, disturbed Jefferson quite deeply. America had a tradition of religious tolerance, the fact that Jefferson, himself, had co-authored the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, but fundamentalist Islam was like no other religion the world had ever seen. A religion based on supremacism, whose holy book not only condoned but mandated violence against unbelievers was unacceptable to him. His greatest fear was that someday this brand of Islam would return and pose an even greater threat to the United States.
This should bother every American. That Muslims have brought about women-only classes and swimming times at taxpayer-funded universities and public pools; that Christians, Jews, and Hindus have been banned from serving on juries where Muslim defendants are being judged, Piggy banks and Porky Pig tissue dispensers have been banned from workplaces because they offend Islamist sensibilities. Ice cream has been discontinued at certain Burger King locations because the picture on the wrapper looks similar to the Arabic script for Allah, public schools are pulling pork from their menus, on and on in the newspapers….
It’s death by a thousand cuts, or inch-by-inch as some refer to it, and most Americans have no idea that this battle is being waged every day across America. By not fighting back, by allowing groups to obfuscate what is really happening, and not insisting that the Islamists adapt to our own culture, the United States is cutting its own throat with a politically correct knife, and helping to further the Islamists agenda. Sadly, it appears that today’s America would rather be politically correct than victorious.
Any doubts, just Google – Thomas Jefferson vs the Muslim World 

I don’t know who wrote this piece, but I found it to be very interesting. Not much has changed, has it?

OR HAS IT!
obama-loves-his-country
His  (Jefferson’s)  greatest fear was that someday this brand of Islam would return and pose an even greater threat to the United States. I bet he never expected to see one running the White House!

Al — Maybe you’ve seen my comments in the news… at the South Carolina National Security Action Summit, I offered a blunt assessment of the Iranian nuclear talks.

The deal President Obama is negotiating with Iran is an unprecedented surrender by the United States.

Now, liberals are slandering me in the news for speaking the truth. What do you think?

If you agree that any deal with Iran that allows them to continue their nuclear program is a surrender by the United States, then click here now and pledge your support by making a donation of $10 or more to John Bolton PAC.

I’ll use every dollar to launch an all-out-assault on Obama’s defeatist foreign policy.

I’m not going to give the liberal left — especially Barack Obama, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton — the last word at this critical point in our nation’s history. I’m asking for you to take a stand with me against their embarrassment of a foreign policy. Click here now to pledge your support.

Al, I’ve never been one for mincing words when it comes to protecting the security of America.

I will do absolutely anything to ensure that America is safe and strong, even if it means speaking the truth no matter how badly the liberals wished I remained silent.

I will not apologize for this.

I promise you: I will continue to speak out as boldly as I can against Obama’s rotten foreign policy, especially this bogus deal with Iran.

Are you with me? Or do you agree with the liberal media that thinks that if we give Iran a nuclear program they will be a happy friend to the United States and Israel? Click here now if you’re behind me.

Make the pledge today. I refuse to be silent on this, and I urge you to do the same.

For America,


John Bolton
Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations

John Bolton PAC