Re: TURMEL: Money, Interest and Prosperity

On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 00:12:45 GMT, "Dan Parker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 05:33:54 GMT, "Dan Parker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 07:09:20 GMT, "Dan Parker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Of course a simpleton would think a 100% control
>> >> >factor would be the only control factor to worry about.
>> >>
>> >> Do you know what "corner" means?
>> >
>> >It means there are monopoly forces at play.
>>
>> No, actually, it doesn't.
>
>Well this is neat Roy. You told me I didn't know the
>definition of a word. I supplied a meaning for it, along with
>a reference.
>
>You repeat my meaning is wrong, yet do not supply a definition or
>a reference.

To corner is to exact monopoly prices through control of 100% of
available supply.  Monopoly forces do not always or even usually
result in cornering.

>> >> >You can look at the Great Depression for a more modern
>> >> >version of this (where gold was confiscated, by making it
>> >> >illegal for citizens to hold it).
>>
>>>http://www.canadianactionparty.ca/MainPages/Comic.asp?Page=7&Language=Engl
>ish
>> >>
>> >> Forcible confiscation is not "cornering."
>> >
>> >No, it just helped the monopolizers is all, or led to cornering.
>>
>> I agree.  But it was obviously done to _demonetize_ gold.
>
>As I understand your argument here, you are agreeing that
>gold was cornered,

No.

>in order to make your case that it is
>idiocy to suggest that gold could be cornered.

Gold was not cornered.  It was confiscated.  The US government did not
control supply anywhere but in the USA, and it did not exact monopoly
prices within the USA.

>In your
>first post, (which failed to explain how the gold standard
>did not lead to the current debt/interest monetary fraud
>we have now)

One is never required to prove a negative.  I also did not prove that
Caesar's assassination did not lead to the current money system.

>you called it idiocy to suggest that gold
>could be cornered; (which is to say FDR did not make
>gold possession illegal in the U.S, and all the history books that
>say this are wrong.)

<yawn>  Kindly reference one history book, or any respectable source
whatsoever, that claims the US government "cornered" gold.

>Nevermind the GATA stuff you snipped
>which reiterates lawsuits and basically proof that gold
>is being controlled on an international basis.
>
>Once again
>
>http://www.gata.org/

I am familiar with GATA, and probably was long before you were.

>> >[v]  gain control over; "corner the gold market"
>> >
>> >http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/corner
>> >
>> >First try on google. Gain control over.  100% controls
>> >sez GATA, but even 70 or 80% control is way to much.
>>
>> To corner is to control 100% of market supply.  There is just no way
>> to do that with gold, because inventories are just too big.
>>
>> >I think the silver
>> >cornering failed.
>>
>> Bingo.  And cornering gold would be orders of magnitude more
>> difficult.
>
>If this is accurate, then there are magnitudes more gold available
>than there is silver.

Not necessarily.  It depends how hard it is to gain control of all of
it.  Because central banks hold a lot of gold and hardly any silver,
silver is far easier for private interests to corner.

>I haven't researched the quantities of each, and
>look forward to your data showing that gold is more plentiful in the
>earth, by several magnitudes, than silver.

??  The amount in the earth is irrelevant.  Only what is currently
available counts as supply.

>I'm serious that I have no idea what are the tonnages.  I would
>still bet against you, strictly on the basis of your credibilty vis
>a vis your previous statements.

??  Then you are an idiot, as I have a pretty solid record of being
proved right.

>Usually I always check these
>things out, but you are so easily proven a liar or idiot, that I
>will leave myself open here, to provide a bit of a challenge.

<sigh>  Why do I bother?

>So please show that gold is several magnitudes more plentiful
>than silver.

Nice bait and switch.

-- Roy L