kilogram Sevres, FranceThe Floating Dollar as a Threat to Property Rights

Seth Lipsky is the founding editor of the New York Sun. A graduate of Harvard College, he served in the U.S. Army in Vietnam as a combat correspondent for Pacific Stars and Stripes. A former senior editor and member of the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal, he has also served as editorial page editor of The Wall Street Journal/Europe, managing editor of The Asian Wall Street Journal, and assistant editor of Far Eastern Economic Review. In 2009, he published The Citizen’s Constitution: An Annotated Guide.

The following is adapted from a speech delivered on February 16, 2011, at a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar in Phoenix, Arizona.

TO BEGIN, consider one of the most important measures of property, the kilogram. It’s a measure of mass or, for non-scientific purposes, weight. According to the papers last week, a global scramble is under way to define this most basic unit after it was discovered that the standard kilogram—a cylinder of platinum and iridium that is maintained by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures—has been losing mass.

You may think that this is impossible. Of all the elements, iridium is the most resistant to corrosion, and the cylinder is kept in a facility at Sevres, France, where it is under three glass domes accessible by three separate keys. The cylinder itself is more than 130 years old and is what the New York Times calls the “only remaining international standard in the metric system that is still a man-made object.” The new urgency to redefine the kilogram comes from the fact that its changing mass “defeats,” as the Times put it, “its only purpose: constancy.”

The question I invite you to consider for a moment is what would happen if we just let the kilogram float? This is a question that was posed in an editorial last week in the New York Sun. After all, the editorial said, we let the dollar float. The creation of dollars, and the status of the dollar as legal tender, is a matter of fiat. Its value is adjusted by the mandarins at the Federal Reserve, depending on variables they only sometimes share with the rest of the world. This would have floored the Framers of our Constitution, who granted Congress the power to coin money and regulate its value in the same sentence in which they gave it the power to fix the standard of weights and measures—like, say, the aforementioned kilogram.

Now, the record is clear in respect of how America’s founders viewed money. Many of them went into the Second United States Congress, where they established the value of the dollar at 371 ¼ grains of pure silver. The law through which they did that, the Coinage Act of 1792, noted that the amount of silver they were regulating for the dollar was the same as in a coin then in widespread use, known as the Spanish milled dollar. The law said a dollar could also be the free-market equivalent in gold. The Founders did not expect the value of the dollar to be changed any more than the persons who locked away that kilogram of platinum and iridium expected the cylinder to start losing mass. In fact, in this same 1792 law, they established the death penalty for debasing the dollar.

Today, members of the Federal Reserve Board don’t worry about how many grains of silver or gold are behind the dollar. They couldn’t care less. And this is what I believe is the most worrisome threat to property rights today. When the value of a dollar plunges at a dizzying rate—at one point in recent months it collapsed to less than 1/1,400 of an ounce of gold—Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke goes up to Capitol Hill and declares merely that he is “puzzled.” No “new urgency” to redefine the dollar for him. The fact is that we’ve long since ceased to define the dollar, and it can float not only against other currencies but even against 371 ¼ grains of pure silver.

So, the New York Sun asked, why not float the kilogram? After all, when you go into the grocery to buy a pound of hamburger, why should you worry about how much hamburger you get—so long as it’s a pound’s worth? A pound is supposed to be .45359237 of a kilogram. But if Congress can permit Mr. Bernanke to use his judgment in deciding what a dollar is worth, why shouldn’t he—or some other Ph.D. from M.I.T.—be able to decide from day to day what a kilogram is worth?

No doubt some will cavil that the fact that the dollar floats makes it all the more reason for the kilogram to be constant. But what’s so special about the kilogram? If the fiat dollar floats, one has no idea what it will be worth when it comes time to spend it. If the kilogram also floats, it will simply be twice as hard to figure out what something we’re buying will be worth. So what if, when we unwrap our hamburger, the missus has to throw a little more sawdust in the meatloaf?

Or let us consider a compromise. Let’s go to a fiat kilogram—that is, permit the kilogram to float—but apply the new urgency to fixing the dollar at a specified number of grains of gold. To those who say it would be ridiculous to fix the dollar but let the butcher hand you whatever amount of hamburger he wants when you ask for a kilogram, I say, what’s the difference as to whether it’s the measure of money or of weight that floats?

For that matter, one could go all the way and fix the value of both the kilogram and the dollar but float the value of time. You say you want to be paid $100 an hour. That’s fine by your boss. But he—or Chairman Bernanke—gets to decide how many minutes in the hour. Or how long the minute is. You know you’ll get a kilogram of meat for the price a kilogram of meat costs. But you won’t know how long you have to work to earn the money.

There was obviously a satirical element to that Sun editorial. But it’s not satirical to say that we are in a dangerous situation in our country in respect of the dollar, and that property rights are very much bound up in the question of money. After all, consider that kilogram. It is a cylinder. And it’s a cylinder the size of, say, a golf ball. The amount of mass that it is believed to have lost is measured in a few atoms, and yet the institution where they maintain standards is in a complete tizzy about it. The implications are said to be enormous.

The dollar, by contrast, has collapsed from 1/35 of an ounce of gold to less than 1/1,300 of an ounce of gold. If the kilogram had collapsed on that order of magnitude, there would be left only a small shard of that handsome grayish cylinder under the three glass domes at Sevres, France.

I understand that this is not where the property rights discussion is usually focused. It usually centers around the takings clause of the Constitution—the clause at the center of the landmark case that erupted when condemnation proceedings were launched against the homes in New London, Connecticut, of a woman named Susette Kelo and her neighbors. Under the Fifth Amendment, the government is prohibited from taking private property for public use without just compensation. That is a bedrock principle of American constitutionalism. What was special about Susette Kelo is that her property was taken for private use. It was coveted by a private, non-profit development corporation for private, for-profit use near a big pharmaceutical development that the town reckoned would benefit the public.

Mrs. Kelo and her neighbors went all the way to the Supreme Court to try to keep their homes. She lost the case, Kelo v. New London, albeit by a five to four vote. On the one hand, it was a terrible defeat for the principle of property rights. On the other hand, the decision was so alarming that states have begun changing their own laws to strengthen protections against the kind of raid on private property that Mrs. Kelo suffered. At least 43 states have already passed such laws. Rarely has the loser in a Supreme Court case established so great a legacy as Mrs. Kelo, whose case is one of the most important warnings we have had in my generation of the vigilance that is going to be required in respect of the right to property enshrined in the Fifth Amendment.

Which brings me to the question of how the law can be used to illuminate the problem of the floating dollar. What I consider the most astonishing legal question in the country came into the news in 2008, when Judith Kaye, the chief judge of the highest court in the state of New York, the Court of Appeals, filed a lawsuit in an inferior court, asking it to order the state legislature and the governor to give her a raise.

My first reaction, and that of my colleagues at the Sun, was to consider this something of a joke. Yet the more we began to look at the case, the more it threw into sharp relief the issue of the right to the property that comes to us in the form of a salary or is held by us in the form of savings. The judges on New York’s Court of Appeals, after all, hadn’t had a raise in more than a decade, and they were having an ever harder time making their salaries cover rising costs. In that they are just like the rest of us.

But it turns out that under the Constitution, judges are not quite like the rest of us—and in a way that lies at the heart of the American Revolution. Indeed, in the Declaration of Independence, one of the reasons our Founders listed for breaking with England was that King George III had “made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.” So they wrote into the Constitution not only that judges would have life tenure (with good behavior), but also that the pay of a judge would not be diminished during his term in office. This principle that one can never lower the pay of a judge is also in many state constitutions.

So if in, say, the year 2000 a judge was paid in dollars that were worth 1/265 of an ounce of gold, and if today that same judge is being paid with dollars worth less than 1/1,300 of an ounce of gold, has the judge’s pay been diminished?

The more I’ve thought about it, the more I have been nagged by the thought that judges’ pay could be the device with which to attack the legal tender law I have come to regard as the greatest threat to property in America. This is the law establishing that paper money in America must be accepted in payment of debts, public and private. The Founders themselves hated paper money. Washington, whose picture is on the one dollar bill, warned that paper money would inevitably “ruin commerce, oppress the honest, and open the door to every species of fraud and injustice”; Jefferson, whose picture is on the two dollar bill, called its abuses inevitable; as did Madison, whose picture is on the $5,000 bill. Paper money, he said, was “unconstitutional, for it affects the rights of property as much as taking away equal value in land.”

I’m not so sure that the existence of paper money is the problem. The problem is the requirement that a one dollar paper note be accepted in lieu of 371 ¼ grains of silver. Certainly when the greenback was introduced—as it was by President Lincoln—it was for a cause, the Union, that was worth enormous risks. The Treasury Secretary who helped him put through the greenback as a war measure, Salmon Chase, became, in 1864, the sixth Chief Justice of the United States; and when the concept of legal tender finally came up for consideration, Chase ruled against the greenback. President Grant, however, eventually got two new justices on the court, and legal tender was established in a series of rulings—one involving the purchase of some sheep, the other of some bales of cotton, and another some land—known as the Legal Tender Cases.

A few months ago, I called Bernard Nussbaum, who was representing Judge Kaye, and asked him why she didn’t challenge legal tender head on. He told me he feared the Legal Tender Cases couldn’t be overturned. It was too heavy a lift. So instead he fought the case on separation of powers grounds. It seems that the New York legislature had said it would not give the judges of New York a raise until the legislators got a raise. The judges sprang on this as a transgression of separation of powers—and, no surprise, when they heard their own case, they ruled against the legislature. A few weeks ago, the legislature decided to delegate to an independent commission the job of deciding judges’ pay.

By my lights, this delegation to an unelected body, even if the legislature could overrule it, was an unsatisfactory outcome. But it turns out that the judges of New York are not the only jurists who are furious about the diminishment of their pay. A group of federal judges is also in court, fighting over their salaries. In the case of the federal judges, Congress had some time ago enacted a law that gave them an automatic pay increase designed to keep up with the Consumer Price Index. But then, as deficits got out of control and Congress’s own salary lagged, Congress suspended the automatic pay increase.

At that point, a coalition of federal judges went into court. Their aim is limited: to force Congress to reinstate the automatic pay adjustment. To understand the scale of what one is talking about, consider the pay of but one of the plaintiffs, Judge Silberman. I don’t know his exact salary. But at the time he was assigned to the District of Columbia Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals, the salary of a federal appeals judge—$83,200—was worth 258 ounces of gold. Since then, the value of the pay of a judge of one of the Appeals circuits—$184,500—has been diminished to 139 ounces of gold.

At this very hour, the judges’ petition in their pay case is before the United States Supreme Court. And while I believe the justices have been wronged by Congress, I hope they lose on the question of whether a suspension in the automatic pay adjustment is unconstitutional. That should get them angry enough to come back and look legal tender in the face. They could force Congress to pay them in the gold or silver equivalent of a federal judge’s salary at the time they were appointed to the bench. It would move judges closer to the kinds of salaries the lawyers before them are receiving.

And people would start to ask: If judges deserve honest money, why shouldn’t the rest of us?

To those who suggest that such a scenario is far-fetched, one can say, no more far-fetched than the notion that the post-Civil War monetary system could be erected on Supreme Court decisions in a pair of disputes over payment for a flock of sheep and some bales of cotton. Or that centuries of law on abortion could be overturned in a fell swoop by a Supreme Court ruling in the case of a woman who later changed her mind. Could the court cast aside precedent to decide such a sweeping issue as legal tender? It certainly didn’t hesitate—nor should it have—in demolishing the notion that racially separate schools could be equal. With everyone from the United Nations to Communist China today calling for the abandonment of the dollar as a reserve currency, is it so hard to imagine that the Supreme Court might revisit the Legal Tender Cases?

It may be that the judges will lose their pay case, just as Susette Kelo lost her house, or that they will win a partial victory and the Supreme Court will shy away from confronting legal tender. But we know from Mrs. Kelo’s case that this needn’t be the end of things. People began to see the logic and think about property rights, and now at least 43 states have passed laws to make it harder for state and local jurisdictions to use the power of eminent domain to seize private land for someone else’s private use.

Could such a thing happen with money? Well, there is a part of the Constitution called Article I, Section 10. It is the section that lists the things that states can never do. And one of these prohibited activities is making legal tender out of something other than gold or silver coin. So what is happening now is that a growing number of states, watching the sickening plunge in the value of federal money, are starting to explore how they can set up monetary systems based on gold or silver coins. The most recent effort was launched in Virginia, where there is a bill before the General Assembly to set up a joint committee to study the question. There have been early stirrings—just stirrings—in the legislatures of several other states.

Could the entry of the states into the monetary role be a reaction to a failure at the federal level, the way the states reacted to the failure of the Supreme Court to enforce Susette Kelo’s Fifth Amendment rights? It would be inaccurate to make too much of these efforts. But it would be shortsighted to make too little of them. Strange things can happen. It is even possible that one can take a cylinder of platinum and iridium, lock it away in a room under three glass domes, secure it with three separate keys, and come back in a few years to discover that part of it has disappeared. And the New York Times will write an editorial about the value of constancy.

Copyright © 2010 Hillsdale College. The opinions expressed in Imprimis are not necessarily the views of Hillsdale College. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided the following credit line is used: “Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.” SUBSCRIPTION FREE UPON REQUEST. ISSN 0277-8432. Imprimis trademark registered in U.S. Patent and Trade Office #1563325.

By: Theodore Butler

This is an excerpt from the Weekly Review of May 7, 2011 The historic decline this week in silver creates strong emotion. Watching great amounts of wealth disappear, quite literally in minutes amid disorderly trading conditions is a genuine fear for any investor. Worse is seeing no obvious legitimate reason to explain the carnage. If that doesn’t scare you, nothing will. Especially if you already harbored unease about how the whole silver market operated. But fear is an emotion that burns out fairly quickly. A human being can’t stay in an intense state of fear of financial catastrophe without selling out at some point or mentally adjusting to the new level of price. Then the conditions that led to the fear in the first place are replaced by some other emotion. If evidence exists that the sudden financial loss could and should have been prevented, the new emotion becomes one of anger. Anger at who or what might have caused the loss and who should have prevented it. I think there is compelling evidence pointing to who and what caused this silver crash as well as who should have prevented it. The first thing we must recognize is that this was an unusually intense price smash. Silver fell 30% for the week, its biggest price loss in 31 years. The decline was highlighted by record trading volume on the COMEX and in shares of SLV. From any objective measure, the trading was disorderly, indicating little true liquidity despite the record volume. That’s because much of the trading was conducted by high frequency trading (HFT) computer bots whose clear purpose seems to be to cause disruptions to prices. These are the same disruptive traders that caused the flash crash in the stock market last year. I believe it was these traders who started the price decline with the $6 hit in 12 minutes on last Sunday evening. Their primary reason for existence seems to be causing prices to collapse. Why these HFT cheaters are allowed to pollute our markets is beyond me. The only clear beneficiary to their trading is the exchange itself which pockets fees on every contract traded. After they crashed the stock market last year, I believe the HFT computer bots toned down their stock market activity due to regulatory pressure. That’s fine, but why were they then allowed to infect silver trading with their disruptive practices? This is just one question I have about this week’s events in the silver market and I will list them all in a moment. First I would like to get something off my chest. I am appalled at what happened in silver this week for a very special reason. I can’t say this latest blatant take down looks out of place for a manipulated market which I have been alleging for 25 years. In fact, not that we needed additional proof that the silver market was rigged, but this intentional price smash provided that proof in spades. Admittedly, I look at silver differently than most folks, but there was something very special about this week. The special reason I am particularly appalled this time is that this is the first silver price smash for the record books that took place during the tenure of Gary Gensler as Chairman of the CFTC. There have been some multi-dollar price declines since Gensler was confirmed in May of 2009, but this week’s smash is the first mega-down move under his watch. That makes it very special to me. As you know, I have put Gensler on a pedestal, repeatedly referring to him as the greatest chairman in CFTC history. Considering my past experiences with the agency, I still marvel at my transformation. I think he has done more than anyone ever to reform commodity regulation, including working diligently, although very quietly, to end the silver manipulation. As you also may know, I have generally come under great criticism and disagreement from many of you about my opinion of Gensler. I have respected that criticism and have used it to reflect on and test my continued belief in the chairman. This week’s events in silver have created what may be a seminal moment. I still hold a deep belief in Gensler’s character and purpose, but it is important to judge how he and the Commission react to this week’s silver price plunge. Certainly, Gensler doesn’t answer to me, but he does answer to the public who he has sworn to serve and protect. The public was not protected this week in silver. I don’t think he had any inkling beforehand about what transpired this week in silver, but he is too smart not to grasp the significance of the silver price plunge and the circumstances that caused it. How he reacts to his first real-time case of blatant fraud and manipulation in silver will be a key test for him. I sure hope his reaction is different from the typical CFTC reaction before he arrived. You know, the three monkeys’ see, hear and speak no evil reaction. Gensler is fully aware that there have been more public complaints and comments and agency investigations concerning silver over the years than for any other issue in agency history. The public has done whatever has been suggested or required by the Commission to make its voice known on silver. Cumulatively, there have been tens of thousands of public and private comments to the Commission regarding silver, from position limits to pointing out specific instances of trading abuse. While I suspect progress has been made behind the scenes, that progress is not visible to the public. Here we have a case where the public couldn’t possibly be more vocal to the prime regulator about wrong-doing in silver and is then subject to the most egregious takedown in history. Silver investors are not second class citizens, yet they are being treated as such. Generally, they are among the most God-fearing, family oriented, hard working, law abiding, productive and patriotic members of society. Chairman Gensler and the Commission know this from the comments that silver investors send in continuously. Then why are silver investors not offered equal protection under the law that the Commission has sworn to uphold? Is there something about “and justice for all” that specifically excludes those that invest in silver? If what occurred in silver this week had instead took place in the stock market, corn, cattle, or any other market, there would be non-stop congressional and CFTC inquiry and debate. Instead, silver investors are confronted with a non-stop barrage of propaganda indicating they were idiots for considering silver. Please allow me to be blunt and specific. These are the questions that Gensler must confront and address– One – the $6 takedown in 12 minutes on Sunday evening on initial light Globex volume was clearly intended to get silver prices rolling downhill. It was something I had never witnessed before. There were no fundamental developments in silver to account for it. Therefore, this was not true price discovery, but price-setting and manipulation. What is the Commission’s take on this matter? Two – the series of margin increases by the CME Group had the effect of adding downward pressure to a market already intentionally rolling downhill. At best, the margin increases prove that silver margins were previously much too low and the CME is incompetent and negligent in setting margins and that function should be taken away from them. At worst, the CME intentionally raised and timed silver margins to aid and abet its most important members in causing the price of silver to crash. In other words, the CME resisted raising margins on the way up as that would have damaged the insider shorts and waited until prices began moving lower to hurt the longs and reward the shorts. I’ve learned from experience that it is best to view the CME as a criminal enterprise. What is the Commission’s opinion on this? Three – the record high trading volume and 30% price smash indicate there was little true liquidity present. This is due to a disproportionate share of trading being performed by HFT computer bots. Why are these traders allowed to exist and control so much a share of silver trading? Four – there has been much media and other commentary about silver being in a bubble that burst due to large leveraged speculative buying. This story has been repeated so often that it is now accepted as being true. Yet the CFTC’s own data in the COT reports indicate that no such speculative buying occurred in silver futures prior to the price crash. Commodity law holds that it is a criminal violation to spread false market information. Why is the CFTC allowing this false market information to be disseminated unchallenged? By remaining silent and not setting the record straight, the Commission itself may be in violation of the law. Five – while outside its direct jurisdiction, the Commission is aware of the allegations of manipulative impact the short selling of shares in the big silver ETF, SLV, has had on the price of silver. What is the Commission’s position on this and has the agency referred this matter to the SEC or taken it up with BlackRock, the trust’s sponsor? Since the last official denial by the CFTC that anything was wrong in the silver market in May 2008, the agency has issued no further denials. Instead, they initiated a new investigation in September of 2008, but little has been said about the findings of this ongoing silver investigation. I think that the denials of a silver manipulation ceased primarily because of Gary Gensler’s assumption of office two years ago. From day one, he has said and done the things which were consistent with the termination of the silver manipulation. That’s why I have publicly (and privately) expressed my admiration and respect for him. But this week’s intentional price smash in silver brings us to a critical junction. No, I am not worried about the price of silver in the long term, as the realities of the supply and demand factors are stronger than any manipulation. What I am concerned about are the principles of market integrity and the rule of law. In those terms, what happened this week is the worst thing possible. The public has warned the Commission to no end about wrongdoing in the silver market, only to see that wrongdoing blatantly displayed again. There are many legitimate questions about what actually took place, such as the ones I have listed above. I think I comprehend the magnitude of the difficult task confronting Gensler in silver. But it is the difficulty of the task that defines the true character of a man or woman. Fixing simple problems and answering easy questions do not lead to greatness. With no pain, comes little gain. Had there been no historic and intentional price crash in silver this week, it would have been appropriate to allow the agency the time necessary to resolve the manipulation. But for the Commission to remain silent now would diminish us all. It’s time for Gensler to speak out on silver and this week’s events. For our collective sake, I hope he does. Ted Butler May 7, 2011

The Nightmare German Inflation

One day everything was fine. The next day hell was unleashed.

Foreword: The many parallels between 1924 Germany and present-day United States are cause for concern. Though the U.S. has not yet reached the depths to which Germany descended in that era, few can look at the constant depreciation of the dollar since the early 1970′s and fail to be alarmed. It seems contemporary America differs from 1924 Germany only in the duration between cause and effect. While the German experience was compressed over a few short years, the effects of the American inflation have been more drawn out.

In my view, this has occurred for two good reasons:

First, American central bankers have learned enough from the German experience to delay and extend the consequences of printing too much fiat money.

Second, Germany was a small state isolated from the rest of the world, a pariah nation of sorts following World War I. As a result, it had a difficult time finding a market for its government bonds. German deficits had to be financed internally — a difficulty which greatly accelerated the printing of fiat currency.

Up until recently, the United States enjoyed a strong world-wide demand for its government paper. Thus, the negative affects of government deficits have been subdued. Now, with consistently low interest rates, and a growing fear globally that U.S. deficits may have run out of control, foreign support for the U.S. bond market has faltered. In the absence of international buyers, the Fed could be forced to monetize an ever larger portions of the debt — the modern equivalent of printing money.

Whether or not the situation will slip out of control is a matter for debate. The trend, however, is alarming. The largest annual contribution to the outstanding public debt during the Nixon years was $30.9 billion; Ford – $87.2 billion; Carter – $81.2 billion; Reagan – $302 billion; Bush(Sr.) – $432 billion; Clinton – $347 billion; GW Bush – $1,017 billion; Obama – $1,885 billion.

As this report points out, the correlation between deficits and inflation is sacrosanct — deficits lead to inflation and uncontrolled deficits lead to uncontrolled inflation. Whether or not there will be a Nightmare American Inflation remains to be seen. Let it be said though that the trend is not favorable.

The survivors of the German debacle did so by purchasing gold  early in the process. As a citizen and an investor, the best you can do is prepare, and then hope that it doesn’t happen here. This report of Germany’s hyperinflation, originally published in 1970 by Scientific Market Analysis, could play an important part in your preparation process. There is little doubt it will affect your thinking.

- Michael J. Kosares

_______________________

Introduction

If history teaches anything, it is that government cannot be trusted to manage money. When currency is not redeemable in gold, its value depends entirely on the judgment and the conscience of the politicians. (That is the situation in this country today.)

Especially in an economic crisis or a war, the pressure to inflate becomes overwhelming. Any alternative may seem politically disastrous. Whether it be the Roman emperors repeatedly debasing their coinage, the French revolutionary government printing a flood of assignats, John Law flooding France with debased money, or the Continental Congress issuing money until it was literally “not worth a Continental,” the story is similar. A government in financial straits finds its easiest recourse is to issue more and more money until the money loses its value. The entire process is accompanied by a barrage of explanations, propaganda and new regulations which hide the true situation from the eyes of most

german national currency
German national currency (1920s)

people until they have lost all their savings. In World War I, Germany — like other governments — borrowed heavily to pay its war costs. This led to inflation, but not much more than in the U.S. during the same period. After the war there was a period of stability, but then the inflation resumed. By 1923, the wildest inflation in history was raging. Often prices doubled in a few hours. A wild stampede developed to buy goods and get rid of money. By late 1923 it took 200 billion marks buy a loaf of bread.

Millions of the hard-working, thrifty German people found that their life’s savings would not buy a postage stamp. They were penniless. How could this happen in a highly civilized nation run at the time by intelligent, democratically chosen leaders? What happened to business, to wages and employment? How did some people manage to save their capital while a few speculators made fortunes?

The Years 1914-1921

When the war broke out on July 31, 1914, the Reichsbank (German Central Bank) suspended redeemability of its notes in gold. After that there was no legal limit as to how many notes it could print. The government did not want to upset people with heavy taxes. Instead it borrowed huge amounts of money which were to be paid by the enemy after Germany had won the war, Much of the borrowing was discounted and monetized by the Reichsbank. As explained later, this amounted to issuing straight printing press money.

By the end of the war, the amount of money in circulation had increased four-fold. In view of this, the extent of inflation was less than one might have expected. The consumer price index had risen 140% by December 1918. This was equal to the inflation during the same time in England, a little more than in the United States, but less than in France. Yet the floating debt of the Reichsbank had increased from 3 billion to 55 billion marks!

Why was inflation kept within bounds? For the same reason that it got off to a slow start in the Unites States during World War II. Necessities were rationed and luxury goods were not easily available. Millions of men were at the front and not in the market for goods. Civilians worked hard and had little leisure for spending. People saved money against peace time, and in some cases to evade taxes. But the fuel for inflation was accumulating in the form of vast hoards of money.

Wholesale Price Index 

July 1914 1.0
Jan 1919 2.6
July 1919 3.4
Jan 1920 12.6
Jan 1921 14.4
July 1921 14.3
Jan 1922 36.7
July 1922 100.6
Jan 1923 2,785.0
July 1923 194,000.0
Nov 1923 726,000,000,000.0

The harsh reparation payments imposed on Germany led the mark to depreciate against foreign currencies. Also, the new democratic socialist leaders had promised the people all types of bounties–increased wages, reduced hours, an expanded educational system, and new social benefits. But all this meant a vastly increased demand on a limited production capacity.

For these reasons inflation resumed after the peace until by February 1920 the price level was five times as high as it had been at the armistice. Yet during this same time the amount of currency in circulation had only doubled. Prices were in fact rising much faster than the rate at which money was being printed. Therefore, reasoned the officials, the price inflation could hardly be blamed on the government. Actually, as we shall see, the ebb and flow of confidence can play a big role in the short-term trend of prices. Confidence in the mark had weakened. At the same time, and as a consequence, billions of hoarded marks came out of hiding and entered the marketplace. The accumulated fuel was burning.

By February 1920 this inflationary episode had run its course. For the next fifteen months the price index held stable. The mark actually gained in value against foreign currencies, so that prices of imported goods fell by some 50%. Here was a golden opportunity to establish a stable currency. However, during these fifteen months the government kept issuing new money. The currency in circulation increased by 50% and the floating debt of the Reichsbank by 100%, providing fuel for a new outbreak.

In May 1921, price inflation started again and by July 1922 prices had risen 700%. The Reichsbank continued printing new currency, although more slowly than the rate at which prices were rising. In fact, all through this period the issue of currency proceeded at a fairly smooth steady rate, while the price index moved up in great surges, interspersed by periods of stability.

After July 1922 the phase of hyperinflation began. All confidence in money vanished and the price index rose faster and faster for fifteen months, outpacing the printing presses which could not run out money as fast as it was depreciating.

The Years 1922-1923 — Hyperinflation!

From Mid-1922 to November 1923 hyperinflation raged. The table above tells the story. Seemingly Reichsbank officials believed that the basic trouble was the depreciation of the mark in terms of foreign currencies. In late 1922 they tried to support the mark by purchasing it in the foreign exchange markets. However, since they continued printing new currency at a feverish rate, the attempt failed. They merely succeeded in buying worthless marks in return for valuable gold and foreign exchange.

All hope of checking the collapse of the mark vanished in January 1923 when the French–alleging treaty violations–occupied Germany’s key industrial district, the Ruhr. Germany subsidized the occupied companies and financed an expensive program of “passive resistance.” New billions of marks were printing to finance these heavy new costs. By late 1923, 300 paper mills were working top speed and 150 printing companies had 2000 presses going day and night turning out currency.

Under the forced draft of inflation, business was now operating at feverish speed and unemployment had disappeared. However, the real wages of workers dropped badly. Unions obtained frequent increases, but these could not keep pace. Workers –domestics, farm workers and various white collar groups– fared especially badly. They had no unions to fight for pay boosts for them, and often they were reduced to hunger. Many people showed visible signs of malnutrition. Skilled workers, writers, artisans and professionals found their wages lagging until they reached the unskilled worker level, which often meant the bare minimum needed to support life.

Bread line in Germany
Lining up at the bakery early before prices went up

Businessmen began to abandon their legitimate occupations to speculate in stocks and in goods. Thousands of small businessmen tried to eke out a living by speculating in fabrics, shoes, meat, soap, clothing–in any produce they could obtain. Each fall in the mark brought a rush to the shops. People bought dozens of hats or sweaters.

By mid-1923 workers were being paid as often as three times a day. Their wives would meet them, take the money and rush to the shops to exchange it for goods. However, by this time, more and more often, shops were empty. Storekeepers could not obtain goods or could not do business fast enough to protect their cash receipts. Farmers refused to bring produce into the city in return for worthless paper. Food riots broke out. Parties of workers marched into the countryside to dig up vegetables and to loot the farms. Businesses started to close down and unemployment suddenly soared. The economy was collapsing.

 

Meanwhile, middle-class people who depended on any sort of fixed income found themselves destitute. They sold furniture, clothing, jewelry and works of art to buy food. Little shops became crowded with such merchandise. Hospitals, literary and art societies, charitable and religious institutions closed down as their funds disappeared.

Then by a mere effort of will, the government stepped in and stabilized the currency overnight.

Throughout the “miracle of the Rentenmark” the depreciation halted in its tracks, business revived, the inflationary spree was ended although, as we shall see, there was a nasty hangover yet to come.

Millions of middle-class Germans–normally the mainstay of a republic–were ruined by the inflation. They became receptive to rabid right wing propaganda and formed a fertile soil for Hitler. Workers who had suffered through the inflation turned, in many cases, to the Communists. The biggest beneficiaries of this enormous redistribution of wealth were feudalistic industrial leaders who distrusted the democracy and who proved willing to deal with Hitler, thinking that they could control him. The democratic parties and the labor unions lost their capital and were weakened. The liberal democratic regime was discredited.

What caused the inflation?

Our thesis is simple: The inflation was caused by the government issuing a flood of new money, causing prices to rise. Then, as the inflation gained momentum, events seemed to demand the printing of larger and larger issues of currency. To half the process would have taken political courage, and this was lacking. As usual, the true facts were hidden behind a barrage of excuses, explanations and propaganda laying blame on everyone except the true culprit.

First, it would be wrong to think that everyone was opposed to inflation. Many big business leaders accepted it cheerfully. It wiped out their debts. They knew how to protect themselves and even profit–by speculating in foreign exchange, by converting money into goods and fixed plant, by borrowing money from the bank and using it to buy up cheap stocks and competing companies. Their wage costs, in true value, decreased, swelling their profits. Yet many workers also thought that they were benefiting, at least in the earlier stages of the inflation. Their wages were increased, and it took time before they recognized that, with prices soaring even faster, they were actually suffering a cut in true income.

A crew of speculators arose who traded in goods and foreign exchange, they had a vested interest in continued inflations. And the government could not help realizing that the inflation was wiping out its burden of debt and would ease its financial problems.

Above all, it became an article of faith among the political leaders and most ordinary citizens that the inflation was really due to the burden of reparation payments imposed by the peace treaty. This meant, so the argument ran, that Germany would be stripped of its gold, foreign exchange and wealth; it would be bankrupt. Hence, the mark fell in value in terms of gold or dollars. This drop in the foreign exchange value of the mark was said to be the true reason for the inflation.

The German leaders felt that the collapse of the mark was proving how impossible it was for Germany to pay the reparations which were demanded. Stabilization of the mark would have spoiled this “proof.” Especially after France occupied the Ruhr in January 1923, it was felt that the destruction of the mark was somehow a blow against the hated occupier–the only patriotic response available to disarmed Germany.

Finally, inflation seemed to bring prosperity. In 1921, when the rest of the world was in a severe post-war recession, production indices in Germany rose sharply. Late in 1921 the mark stabilized temporarily, and business promptly weakened. By early 1922 the mark was sliding again, and business immediately revived. People were buying goods as fast as they obtained money; companies rushed to expand plants and turn money into fixed investment. Germany was actually envied for its “prosperity” by many foreigners.

[Ed. Note: Does this sound like modern-day America, albeit with people spending on stocks in addition to goods?]

worthless moneyThe mechanism of inflation was simple. The government issued paper promises to pay, and the Reichsbank issued money on the security of these promises. When a government spends more than its income, it must borrow. If it merely borrows money from its citizens by selling them bonds, there need be no inflation. Instead of that money being spent or invested by the citizen, it is borrowed and spent by the government, but the total amount of money is not increased.

When the government needs more money than its people are able or willing to lend it, it monetizes the debt. That is what happens in this country when the government runs a big deficit. The Federal Reserve (our central bank) “buys” as many bonds as necessary to stabilize the market. It prints money on the security of these bonds. Despite the facade of the government supposedly “borrowing,” the net result is the creation of printing press money. (Actually these days the money is created in the form of new bank deposits–checkbook money–but the net result is exactly the same as if bills were printed.)

This is what happened in Germany. The government issued notes which were promptly discounted by the Reichsbank, i.e., the bank issued money on the “security” of these worthless notes. To compound the evil, the bank failed to raise its interest rate sufficiently. Businessmen found it very profitable to borrow money from the bank and buy up goods, shares and companies. Their debt was wiped out within weeks by the rapid inflation, and the businessman remained holding the valuable assets he had bought. The net result was a huge “private inflation” caused by the rapid expansion of credit. Even foreign exchange was bought with borrowed money, so that the Reichsbank actually financed speculation against its own currency. Yet the bank refused to raise interest rates, arguing that this would only add to the cost of business and thus would increase inflation!

The tax system virtually broke down. Businessmen found that by merely delaying tax payments, the depreciation in the mark would virtually eliminate their true value. But the government, lacking adequate income, felt forced to resort more and more to creating money. By October 1923, 1% of government income came from taxes and 99% from the creation of new money.

But the main force which gave inflation its momentum was the steady decrease in the true value of money in circulation. This has been observed in all past rapid inflations and it is vital to understand it if inflation is to be coped with. During the war, as we saw, the price inflation lagged behind the rate at which money was issued. But now, as people lost confidence, prices began jumping much faster than the government could generate new money. Thus the total circulating currency fell drastically when measured in terms of its true value. One economist stated that, “In proportion to the need, less money circulates in Germany now than before the war. This statement may cause surprise but it is correct. The circulation is now 15-20 times that of pre-war days, whilst prices have risen 40-50 times.” In fact, the total currency when calculated in gold value fell from 7428 million marks in January 1920 to a mere 168 million by July 1923.

Despite the proliferating billions of trillions of marks, the average citizen found it harder and harder to get enough money for necessities. Banks, short of money, could not honor checks. Businessmen were strapped for money to buy materials and meet payrolls. The government faced the same problem. It appeared that there was not too much money around, but rather much too little. The clamor for more money grew on all sides. It seemed that any halt to the printing presses would bring business to a standstill and throw millions of workers out on the street. The government itself would be unable to carry on. Riding a tiger, it dared not dismount. On October 25, 1923, the Reichsbank noted that it had that day printed 120,000 trillion marks. Unfortunately, the day’s demand had been for one million trillion. However, it announced that it was expanding production and the daily issue would soon be 500,000 trillion!

Once people lose confidence in a currency, they try to get rid of it. As Lord Keynes pointed out, this makes circulation speed up enormously, and hence prices rise faster than the government can print new money. Marshall, studying this process, concluded that, “The total value of an ‘ inconvertible paper currency cannot be increased by increasing its quantity; any increase in quantity which seems likely to be repeated will lower the value of each unit more than in proportion to the increase.”

Customarily, however, governments blame everyone and everything except themselves for inflation. When inflation lags behind issue of money, as it did in the war, they say that this shows that the issue of money is not dangerously high. Later, when confidence vanishes, and prices soar ahead of currency issues, that again is taken to prove that the government is not to blame–it is only reluctantly issuing money that is desperately needed in view of rising prices.

We will conclude this discussion with a quotation from Dr. Milton Friedman’s book, Dollars and Deficits. Friedman notes that after the Russian revolution, the Bolsheviks introduced a new currency. They printed huge amounts of it and soon it became almost worthless. At the same time some of the older Czarist currency still circulated and maintained its value in terms of goods. It appreciated enormously in terms of the new money. Why? This money was not redeemable. Nobody expected the Czarist government to return. Why did this currency hold up? “Because,” says Friedman, “there was nobody to print any more of it.”

Effects of Inflation on Business

As inflation proceeded, people rushed to buy goods and get rid of their depreciated money. For similar reasons, businessmen hastened to buy machinery, to build new factories, to buy huge stocks of coal, steel and other raw materials. Those who had access to credit borrowed heavily for these purposes, and inflation wiped out their debt. There was a tremendous conversion of working capital into fixed investments. Business was booming and unemployment virtually vanished until the last stages of the inflation.

Farmers got rid of currency by heavy purchases of equipment, and later many were left holding large supplies of useless machinery. Shipbuilding was expanded beyond all market needs. Marginal mines were opened leading to serious overproduction later on. But while basic industries prospered, there was a severe depression in consumer goods industries such as textiles, meat, beer, sugar and tobacco. Too many workers and persons on fixed incomes had lost their purchasing power.

There was a tremendous move toward concentration of industry. Large firms or combinations found it much easier to raise prices, to obtain raw materials and above all to obtain bank credit. Also, they could issue “notgeld” or emergency money which more and more came to replace the paper mark as a medium of exchange. Some of these new industrial combinations were rational and efficient, but many were purely speculative operations. A new breed of financier arose.

Earlier the great German industrial leaders–men like Krupp, Thyssen and Siemens–had developed basic new ideas in technology or in organization. But now the rising stars were those of shrewd speculators and manipulators geared to quick trading and to jumping from deal to deal and from company to company. The most successful were those who saw the trend of events early, who borrowed to the hilt and bought up goods, shares and companies at bargain prices. Conglomerates sprung up forty years before the heyday of the conglomerate movement in the U.S. Perhaps the biggest operator of the day, Hugo Stinnes, formed a giant conglomerate including companies in oil, coal, steel, shipyards, electrical works, insurance, newspapers and hotels. He died in 1924, just before his empire fell apart in the cold winds of the stabilization period. Most of these new mushroom combinations and conglomerates were speculative bubbles which were only able to survive as long as they benefited from ongoing inflation.

Beneath the surface of prosperity there was enormous waste and inefficiency. Much of the new capital plant proved inefficient or unneeded. Middlemen multiplied like locusts, and more and more time and energy went to speculation and to endless paperwork generated by currency fluctuations, new tax law regulations and labor disputes. Speculation caused banks to multiply; there were 100,000 bank workers in 1913 and 375,000 in 1923. Labor became much less productive. Workmen were pre-occupied with their own problems of trading, getting wage boosts, and staying ahead of inflation. With paper wages rising rapidly and full employment, they were less inclined to work hard. Despite the surface boom, net production was really much less than before the war.

Bewildering fluctuations in costs prices and wages made it impossible to allocate resources and production rationally. More and more, the businessman became a speculator in goods and currencies. However, very few businesses failed, since their debts were constantly wiped out by inflation. Bankruptcies had run to 815 per month in 1913; by late 1923 they were 10 per month.

Finally, however, in the last stages of the inflation, the economy began to collapse. Retailers could not get goods or else could not sell at a profit. The money they received was depreciating too fast. Farmers stopped selling their produce. More and more stores became empty. Now unemployment began to soar.

Some economists argued that inflation may have helped Germany by stimulating the building of capital plant and the rationalization of industry. But much of this investment proved to have no value except in the dream world of inflation. Most of the inflation combinations fell apart after stabilization. On the whole, much energy and wealth was wasted in unproductive channels–speculation, paperwork and unprofitable equipment. The working capital of industry was largely dissipated, making that much harder the eventual process of economic rebuilding and rationalization.

Stabilization–The Rentenmark Miracle

In November 1923, a currency reform was undertaken. A new bank, the Rentenbank, was created to issue a new currency–the Rentenmark. This money was exchangeable for bonds supposedly backed up by land and industrial plant A total of 2.4 billion Rentenmarks was created, and each Rentenmark was valued at one trillion old paper marks. From that moment on the depreciation stopped–the Rentenmarks held their value; even the old paper marks held stable. Inflation ceased.

What was the secret of the “miracle of the Rentenmark”? After all, the new currency was not redeemable in anything. Its backing by real property was a fiction, since there was no way by which property could be foreclosed or distributed. Further, there we have the government distributing a vast new supply of money–2.4 billion trillion in terms of the old mark. Ought that not have led to a new wild inflation?

To understand this, we must recall that the real value of the money circulating in late 1923 was small–equal to a mere 168 million pre-war gold marks. The continued depreciation at this point was due to utter lack of confidence–to the belief that the printing presses would run indefinitely. But actually there was a great shortage of and need for money. New money could be introduced without price inflation if only people had confidence in it. How was confidence developed?

First, the government announced that the new currency would be “wertbestaendig”–stable in value. In their hunger for usable money people accepted this, at least until it should be proven false. Then the property backing seemed to give the currency value. True, the Assignats of the French Revolution, backed by fixed property, had depreciated, but still the backing helped.

Second, and certainly most important, the government limited strictly the amount of Rentenmarks which could be issued and it halted the issue and discounting of notes and the creation of paper marks. Finally, after April 1924, the Reichsbank stopped the expansion of credit to businesses which had been stimulating inflation. Businessmen were required to repay loans in gold marks, equal to the original value of the loan. Thereafter, incentive was gone to borrow except for legitimate needs.

In August 1924 the reform was completed by introduction of a new Reichsmark, equal in value to the Rentenmark. The Reichsmark has a 30% gold backing. It was not redeemable in gold, but the government undertook to support it by buying in the foreign exchange markets as necessary. Drastic new taxes were imposed, and with the inflation ended, tax receipts incr

Playing with money

eased impressively. In 1924-1925 the government had a surplus.

After the stabilization, most companies found that they were critically short of working capital. Their funds had been dissipated or converted into goods and plant, and cash was very short. They could no longer rely on a stream of incoming capital at the cost of bond holders and workers. Taxes were again a serious burden, as were wage agreements that had been made under the inflation.

In other ways the business climate changed. Now there was a huge demand for consumer goods, but the capital goods industries which had so overexpanded in the inflation were depressed. Huge stocks of coal, steel and other materials which had been accumulated were a drug on the market. Agriculture and building, however, flourished.

Many of the speculative and conglomerate companies which had been formed in the inflation were unable to survive. They failed, or split up into their original components. In 1923 there had been only 263 bankruptcies; in 1924 there were 6,033. Most of the great inflation speculators were ruined or faded from the business scene. However, strong, well-organized companies like Krupp and Thyssen which had resisted overexpansion and speculation were able to weather the stabilization period and to thrive.

How Investments Fared

At the start it is important to understand how hard it was to obtain real income during the inflation. Professionals, skilled workers and others used to enjoying good income found their real salaries disastrously cut. Those who depended on savings, pensions or investment income for a living faced a terrible situation.

Interest from bonds or savings deposits soon depreciated to where they had no real value. Stocks paid meager dividends or none at all; corporate managements needed the money for working capital, or used it for capital building and speculation. Owners of rental property fared no better; the government froze rents, which soon meant that tenants were occupying premises virtually rent-free. Dipping into capital led to big losses, since cash, bonds and even stocks quickly shrunk drastically in value. The urgent need for income had important effects on the true prices of various types of property and investments.

Cash: Money held in cash lost value rapidly and soon became completely worthless. Of all investment forms, this was the most disastrous.

Bank Deposits: In theory, bank deposits became as worthless as cash. However, after the stabilization the government decreed partial reimbursement, and sums in the range of 15-30% of the original deposit value were repaid. Naturally, however, the great majority of depositors withdrew their funds at some time during the inflation, after much of the value had been lost, and exchanged them for goods. Few Germans held money in deposits through the entire period.

Bonds, Mortgages: As usual in an inflation, bonds and mortgages fell in value even faster than cash. After the stabilization, some restitution was provided by law. Holders of government bonds were reimbursed to the extent of 2.5% of the original bond values. Mortgage holders also received some repayment, while a 1925 law provided for 15-25% reimbursement of corporate bondholders, though the payment was delayed for some years. Here again, few investors held bonds or mortgages throughout the entire period; most holders got rid of them for whatever pittance they would bring during the inflation.

Real Estate: Farmers and holders of urban property seemed to benefit if their property was mortgaged; the inflation soon wiped out the mortgage debt. However, they received no income, as noted above, since rents were frozen. After the stabilization, heavy new taxes and the urgent need for cash forced most holders to remortgage their property, often more heavily than originally, so that their gains were illusory. Still, those who held real estate throughout managed to save the capital thus invested. However, those who sold during the inflation (often through desperate need for cash) fared poorly. Because it brought no income, real estate sold at extremely low real price levels during inflation.

Foreign Exchange: Those who held funds in dollars, pounds or other stable currencies, or in gold,saved their capital. The government set up rigid exchange controls as the inflation proceeded. As usual under such conditions, a black market flourished. The ones who fared best were the small minority who had the foresight to exchange marks into foreign money or gold very early, before new laws made this difficult and before the mark lost too much value.

Personal Property: Capital was preserved by those who early changed it into objects of lasting value–rare coins, stamps, jewelry, works of art, antiques–or into merchandise such as clothing, fabrics, etc. Of course, most people did not understand the advantage of accumulating such property until the inflation was well along. By that time the prices of all goods had risen so much that they seemed outrageously bad bargains. In the event, however, cash proved an even worse bargain.

Common Stocks: In an inflation, common stocks are generally considered a desirable hedge to protect against or even to profit from the rise in prices. In practice, it is not so simple. In this country stock prices have been known to fall violently just when inflation was most evident (1946, 1957, 1966, 1969). Market fluctuations–the rise of exciting new speculative stocks, waves of fear or greed–all make it much too easy to buy or to sell at the wrong time or to go into the wrong stocks.

Getting down to specifics, we can say that those who bought a well-diversified list of stocks in solid, well-established companies quite early in the inflation and who held on throughout the period and also through the stabilization crisis saved much or all of their capital. However, there were many pitfalls along the wayside for the greedy, the fearful and the over-clever. Those who did best were investors with a certain unemotional, stolid character, a basic confidence that strong, well-managed companies would come through, and an immunity to excitement, anxiety and speculative temptations.

Many very sharp but brief advances and declines in the market led to widespread speculation, and well-intentioned investors often wound up as traders. Naturally most of them did as badly as amateur speculators generally do. Many decided that speculation was the only sensible approach; when the entire economy and financial structure was visibly crumbling, who could wait patiently with confidence in the long-range value of anything?

Could it Happen Here?

Since 1939 the general price levels have gone up some 200% in this country. Much of this inflation was due to the government generating large amounts of money to pay for three wars. You can be absolutely certain that if we are involved in any further wars for big increases in military spending, there will be new inflationary surges. Modem governments do not dare to impose the taxes needed to pay for war. They find it much easier politically to inflate instead.

The most recent wave of inflation, which got underway in 1965, was triggered by enormous expansion in spending for the Vietnam war. The government ran deficits as big as $25 billion, and much of this debt was monetized by a process similar to that by which the Reichsbank monetized the German government’s debt. The main difference is that the newly generated money shows up mainly as bank deposits instead of printed currency. Since bank demand deposits are in fact money, convertible into currency and usable for any type of purchase, the net result is the same.

At the same time that Vietnam war spending mushroomed, our government undertook a vast program of expensive social welfare spending. It was argued that this country could afford guns and butter. The result was an inflation which already has imposed a 20% capital tax on all savings held as cash, bonds, insurance and on pension payments and other fixed income.

Now, in March 1970, the government and the Federal Reserve have been fighting for a year to check the inflation. Thus far, they have succeeded in slowing down the economy, but prices have continued rising as fast as ever. The reason is simple. Inflation has developed momentum. Many people, especially businessmen, have no faith that the government will stick to its policy. They look for more boom and inflation ahead. Hence, they have continued to get rid of money as fast as possible and convert it into goods, machinery and factory buildings. Even though our manufacturing plant is already in excess in needs and is being utilized at only 82% of capacity, the building boom continues. The reasons are precisely those which led to this behavior in the German inflation.

The late 1960s also saw the rise of a new breed of financial speculator. Huge conglomerates were organized, often with heavy borrowing, taking advantage of inflationary trends. Although their stocks soared in 1967-1968, even a hint of possible deflation and a cooler economy led to drastic declines of 60-80% in 1969. Many reported serious losses or sharply lower earnings. We believe that many of these companies could not survive a period of recession and deflation. Further, some bankruptcies in a few huge, prominent speculative companies could set off a chain reaction and a financial crash. And that is where the great danger of a wild inflation lies.

Today the public expects and demands that the government must maintain prosperity and full employment. If a very severe business slump developed, Washington would have no choice at all–it would have to spend huge sums for relief, public works, to pay off mortgages, etc. Yet at the same time tax payments would drop sharply as business profits disappeared. Taxes could hardly be raised under such circumstances. What would the President do? Turn on the printing presses? What else could he do? [Editor's note: As a reminder, after this report was written, the redeemability of the dollar for gold was terminated in 1971, two Oil Crises struck in 1973 and 1979, and massive Cold War expenditures characterized the 1980's.]

Ironically enough, we think that all this could be triggered by the anti-inflation campaign. It may prove all too successful. The money managers in Washington are aiming at a mild cooling down in business. This would reduce spending and investment, and hopefully would slow down the rate of price escalation. We think that it may work for a while and to a degree. Unhappily it poses tremendous danger.

During the last several years of inflationary boom, debt has gone far too high. Government, individuals and especially businesses have borrowed and spent without limit. In an inflationary period, this makes sense. At the same time liquidity is at an all-time low. Cash and government bills are less than 20% of the current liabilities of business against a normal 40-50% (and 90% right after the war).

The danger is that some of the especially vulnerable businesses will get into deep trouble and that the trouble will spread. In 1954, 1958 and 1960 the economy could stand a moderate recession without its escalating into something worse. In 1970 this may no longer be the case. The trend toward illiquidity and dangerously high debt has proceeded for twenty years, and other figures indicate that the breaking point is near. It might come very soon, or not for many months or even a year or two. Who can tell just when some stray breeze will cause a rickety house of cards to collapse?

Once a snowballing financial and economic deflation gets underway, it could develop with breathtaking speed. Soon the government, instead of worrying about inflation, would be using desperation measures to halt the collapse, even if it had to run budgetary deficits of 100 billion or more. In the short run, in a pragmatic sense, Washington would simply feel that it was tackling an overriding emergency, relieving hardship, etc. In the long term, what it would be doing was to inflate up to the point where most of the huge debt burden was wiped out, and a fresh start could be made. Of course, this would be at the expense of millions of savers who would lose most of their capital. Hopefully the expropriation would be less drastic than it was in Germany.

______________________

Reprinted from The Nightmare German Inflation by Scientific Market Analysis, 1970.

Editor’s note: By the end of the 1970′s, double digit inflation had ravaged the American financial landscape. This forecast by Scientific Market Analysis was not only accurate, it was prescient, and the conclusions drawn enduring. Only the very strict monetary policies of the Federal Reserve Bank during the 1980′s kept the nation from sliding into the hyperinflationary abyss, and those years became a period of relative calm. The profligate fiscal policies of the United States government, however, continue unabated. The overall national debt has grown to enormous proportions. The defense build-ups of the Reagan and Bush administrations, coupled with the unbridled growth of entitlements — financed to a large degree with government debt—have set the stage for a new round of inflation. Few believe that the Congress or the President possesses the political will to stop the spending. As argued by Scientific Market Analysis in this report, sooner or later, the deficits will translate to inflation, and sooner or later, the Federal Reserve Bank will find it nigh impossible to continue pulling rabbits out of the hat. Whether or not the inflationary tendency of the American economy will cross the line to hyperinflation is primarily a matter of politics—a reality few of us welcome. For the United States to escape the fate of 1924 Germany, we must alter our ways and soon. MK

Copyright 1999 USAGOLD / Centennial Precious Metals, Inc. All Rights Reserved. No further reproduction without permission.

Come visit with Mike Maloney in this cutting edge video as he tackles the tough questions about today’s gold and silver cycle, where we are and where are going.

Silver & Gold - When Do I Buy & Sell? Insiders Report - Mike Maloney
Runtime
13:48
Keywords
gold silver when to sell real estate buy ratio dow mike maloney invest bullion coin coins rounds eagle maple 500oz peter schiff marc faber bubble boom bust dollar usa median priced home insiders apmex goldline monex
Views
164,231

* when to sell your gold and silver
* when to buy real estate
* when to buy high dividend yielding stocks
* what are some of the measurements GoldSilver uses to evaluate where we are in this great gold and silver bull market of the 21st century

What is a Gold Kinebar, how can KB GOLD protect me and my family with the coming inflation and dollar revaluationyou will be happy you viewed this information on gold and silvergold silver 999.9 ingots ab

LIBERTY DOLLAR ALERT: Judge Napolitano to interview Bernard

Friday April 08. 2011

Dear Liberty Dollar Supporters!

Judge Napolitano will interview Bernard on Friday, April 8. 2011 on Fox News. Please check for your local channel and time. IMPORTANT: Even if you can’t tune into the live interview, please show your support by just logging on to the Judge Napolitano Show that featured Bernard will help popularize the Liberty Dollar.  Napolitano

Liberty Dollar is the top rated article on Yahoo! Please check out the Associated Press article Feds seek $7M in privately made ‘Liberty Dollars’ by Tom Breen for Yahoo at: .

Thanks for joining me on the Peter Schiff Show. It was very well attended and he held me over for an additional half hour! WOW! Thanks Peter.

Thank you for confirming that you are an “interested party.”
The Forfeiture Hearing proceeded as expected. We are now awaiting the decision by Judge Voorhees that will impact your property. It is NOT too late to identify yourself as an “Interested Party.” If you have not emailed your confirmation as an “interested party” who owns paper Liberty Dollar certificates, PLEASE email the statement below. Your property is at risk! Please don’t let the gov steal your property!

PLEASE EMAIL THE STATEMENT BELOW to Thomas R. Ascik

, the government attorney who is trying to steal your property. And send a CC to me so I can forward your name to the attorney who will represent you as an “interested party” after you sign an attorney/client agreement. Be sure to include your name and address below:

I hereby certify that I am the bearer of Liberty Dollar warehouse receipt(s) and an interested party in any forfeiture action regarding my property. I demand the return of my property or its fair market value in a timely manner and to be informed with sufficient time to reply to any and all actions until my property is returned.
MUST INCLUDE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS

The Wall Street Journal article: When Private Money Becomes a Felony Offense – The popular revolt against a declining dollar leads to a curious conviction by Seth Lipsky editor of the New York Sun is still very popular at.
Thanks again for your support!

Bernard von NotHaus
Monetary Architect
Bernard@LibertyDollar.org

By SETH LIPSKY

The next chapter in the struggle over sound money may be the case of a newly minted felon named Bernard von NotHaus. Mr. von NotHaus was convicted this month of counterfeiting money by issuing silver coins called Liberty Dollars. His company’s website says it’s been taken down by court order, and absent a successful appeal he could spend years in jail.

Mr. von NotHaus was convicted under a section of the United States Code that makes it a crime to manufacture or pass “any coins of gold or silver or other metal, or alloys of metals, intended for use as current money, whether in the resemblance of coins of the United States or of foreign countries, or of original design.” The law was enacted during the Civil War, soon after the Union began issuing the paper scrip known as greenbacks.

It is too soon to say what Mr. von NotHaus’s grounds of appeal will be, but it is not too soon to say that his case will be one to watch at a time when so many believe our economic troubles are tied to the fact that the dollar has become a fiat currency, and when leaders world-wide are calling for a new reserve currency.

So alarming has been the collapse of the dollar that the legislatures in as many as a dozen American states are considering using their authority—under Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution—to make legal tender out of gold and silver coins. Lest the ghost of Friedrich Hayek or any other advocate of privately issued money get any bright ideas, however, the von NotHaus verdict will stand as a warning.

The warning is contained in paragraph 33 of the indictment handed up against Mr. von NotHaus in a courtroom at Statesville, N.C. It said:

“Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution delegates to Congress the power to coin money and to regulate the value thereof. This power was delegated to Congress in order to establish a uniform standard of value. Along with the power to coin money, Congress has the concurrent power to restrain the circulation of money not issued under its own authority, in order to protect and preserve the constitutional currency for the benefit of the nation. Thus, it is a violation of law for private coin systems to compete with the official coinage of the United States.”

Yet a curious thing happened in the courthouse on the day before the jury went to deliberate. According to Aaron Michel, Mr. von NotHaus’s attorney, the judge granted Mr. Michel’s request to delete paragraph 33 from the indictment.

“That is a statement of law that, if it were to be put before the jury at all, should have been a matter of discussion between the parties as to the court’s instructions to the jury on the law,” Mr. Michel quoted the judge, Richard Voorhees, as saying. “In any event, it does not appear to the court to be a factual predicate that is supported by the evidence in the case.”

The judge then asked one of the federal prosecutors, Jill Westmoreland Rose, whether she had “any comment on that.” “No, Your Honor,” Ms. Rose replied, according to Mr. Michel. So the copy of the indictment that went to the jury contained white space where paragraph 33 once was.

Yet after Mr. von NotHaus was convicted on March 18, the government issued a press release trumpeting the verdict and repeating the part of the original indictment that the judge had struck out. The release also went further, asserting that Congress’s power to coin money under the Constitution was also meant to “insure a singular monetary system for all purchases and debts in the United States, public and private.”

It again asserted that it is a violation of federal law for individuals—such as, it added, Mr. von NotHaus—”to create private coin or currency systems to compete with official coinage and currency of the United States.” So much for the judge’s view that the paragraph was unsupported by evidence in the case. The U.S. Attorney’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

To be sure, there are advocates of sound money who believe that, while Mr. von NotHaus’s scheme may have been visionary in principle, he made some mistakes under American law. He put a “$” sign on the silver he was issuing, and he denominated the units in dollars (albeit Liberty Dollars, or Liberties). Such facts may have helped convince the jury to find him guilty of counts involving the counterfeiting of coins.

It may also be, however, that the government has overreached in the von NotHaus case. It is indisputably clear that the power to coin money and regulate its value is one that the Constitution delegates to Congress. It’s an enumerated power, and one of the big ones. It’s also clear that the Constitution bars states from making coins other than gold or silver legal tender. But it is not clear that there is a constitutional basis or a logic for prohibiting individuals from making and selling pieces of gold and silver and using them, on a voluntary basis, as money—i.e., to “compete with” the official coinage of the U.S.

Certainly it’s a loser’s game to suppress private money that is sound in order to protect government-issued money that is unsound. For, as was once said by the same Abraham Lincoln who brought in the greenback to finance the great cause of the Union, you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.

Mr. Lipsky is editor of the New York Sun.

The Kinebar

Kinebar KB GOLD .5 grams

Kinebar hologram KB GOLD . 5 grams

A GOLD kinebar is a gold bar which contains a hologram to prove its authenticity.   The Kinebar was developed by Argor-Heraeus for the The Union Bank of Switzerland, (UBS) which introduced a gold bar in 1993 with the hologram on the underside of the bar to validate its authenticity.  Experts agree the GOLD Kinebar security feature is tamper-proof.   There are only 4 companies in the world using the Kinebar patented technology and KB GOLD is one of them!  Now the KB Financial Group a European Group of companies with headquarters in Munich, Germany have launched their own  999.9 grade GOLD kinebar each bearing its own unique serial number and the all-important hologram which guarantees its quality.

The recognized weight for gold is measured in troy ounces.   A troy ounce is equivalent to 31.1034768 grams, when an ounce of gold is $1400 then one gram of pure 999.9 quality gold would be worth USD45.01.

Instead of marketing GOLD in ounces like everyone else, KB Edelmetall is minting GOLD in grams and partial grams.  This makes GOLD is affordable to everyone and anyone.  Many people don’t have the resources to afford $1400 for an ounce of GOLD; however, most people could afford a $45 for a gram of gold!  Especially when they know that in the future it will be worth more!     KB GOLD produces gram sized 24K 999.9 percent gold kinebar, each with its own serial number and hologram which guarantees its authenticity to the international financial community.  The GOLD is then embedded in a plastic card the size of a credit card and sealed to protect it.   KB GOLD produces  5 gram, 1 gram and .5 (half) gram GOLD bars.  Because of the continuing escalation of the price of GOLD they soon will be introducing a .1 (tenth) gram GOLD kinebar.

KB GOLD

KB has been operating in conventional financial services for seventeen years and during that time established itself as a promoter of gold purchase investment plans. As a direct result of acquiring for cash two mining operations based in Turkey, a GOLD refinery, GOLD mint, international GOLD distribution operation and optional FREE vault storage in Switzerland.  With KB GOLD, you can also take physical delivery of your GOLD as well.  KB has developed their business model in such a way as to offer the highest quality GOLD product to the masses. There are 95 top tier refiners in the world of which 89 are owned by governments and only 6 are privately owned. KB is privately held and has no plans to EVER go public.

KB GOLD . 5 grams Switzerland

KB GOLD . 5 grams Switzerland

Savings Opportunities

The company offers a savings account which can be operated in Euro, US Dollars and Sterling.  Lump sum investments can be made, or a savings plan can be set up with monthly minimums.  The gold kinebars can be stored free of charge in St. Gotthard Massif, Switzerland, or you can take PHYSICAL DELIERY.   This is the same vault in the Alps that the Swiss government stores their GOLD.   When cash is required KB will buy back gold kinebars, the cash being transferred two to three days after giving notice to sell.  The best prices are guaranteed as there is no middle man involved as is the case with most gold bar purchases.

Business opportunity

The company have decided to market their GOLD kinebar investment program using the referral marketing.  Anyone can become an affiliate and market their gold bars and be paid a commission.  Alternatively, an individual can sign up as an customer and buy GOLD.  The commission structure is designed to reward those that make this a serious business. There is a great opportunity to develop passive income, as you continue to be paid on the volume of GOLD sold.  The KB gold kinebar is set to create a whole new set of millionaires, the whole world over.  One of those GOLD millionaires could be YOU!

Web sites are provided and it is FREE to join and FREE monthly.  Help will be at hand from the group leaders to help you market this service.

Timing

Governments are continuing to bailing out big business, banks and other governments by printing up more money in the hopes the populations won’t notice.   As this trend continues it will cause hyperinflation and prices on everything are going rise.  Prices are not really rising, it is the money is being DEVALUATED.    The only way to escape these inflationary tactics by governments is to invest in precious metals.  GOLD has been a store of value for more than 2000 years.   Volatility in the world financial market makes having personal gold savings plans as a must for everyone.  A large number of investment advisers  recommend that their clients transfer 10 to 20 percent of their assets into gold.  What better way than GOLD with the highest security feature, KB Kinebar GOLD.

Get back with the person who introduced you to KB GOLD and get started NOW!

KB GOLD KINEBAR .5 Gram Card

KB GOLD KINEBAR .5 Gram Card

If you have been appalled with the government’s comments trying to paint me as a “unique terrorist,” you are not alone. The gov is now trying to brand all local non-government currencies as illegal and anybody who expresses opposition to the current US monetary policy is a “unique terrorist.” Since the Liberty Dollar trial the word “terrorist” has lost any rational meaning and has morphed to simply mean, “doing something the government doesn’t like.”

Seth Lipsky’s article in The New York Sun regarding a “Unique form of Terrorism” confirms the gov’s intention to tailor “terrorism” to any definition they want or need for any occasion. As a result, the adverse reaction to government’s “terrorist” comments has generated a tremendous “blow back” in their face.

So I am pleased to announce Liberty Dollar founder Bernard Von NotHaus will be a guest on the Peter Schiff Show at 11:00, this Friday, April 1, 2011. This is the first time I have spoken publicly since my conviction. The interview will be very informative so I urge you to tune into Peter’s live radio show at http://www.schiffradio.com/. The show’s toll free number is 866.226.5620.

For over twenty years, Peter Schiff has been the forerunner to accurately forecast the U.S. stock market, economy, real estate, the mortgage meltdown, credit crunch, sub-prime debacle, commodities, gold and the dollar. He has distinguished himself as an expert on money, economic theory, and international investing. Peter’s best-selling book, “Crash Proof: How to Profit from the Coming Economic Collapse” has cast him as a legend in predicting the course of the US dollar and what is best for your money.

I have been consistently impressed with Peter’s investment advice and his dedication to those values that the Liberty Dollar represents. It is an honor to be on his show.

Please note: Currently, Peter Schiff is President and Chief Global Strategist for Euro Pacific Capital that is not affiliated with or responsible for the content of SchiffRadio.com.

I hope you can join Peter and I for an engaging interview – one not to be missed!

Bernard von NotHaus
Monetary Architect/Editor

By Brandon Smith

I was in the midst of the Save America Convention in Tampa, Florida when I heard, first, that Libya was under bombardment by the UN (led by U.S. forces), and, that Bernard von NotHaus of Liberty Dollar had been convicted of “counterfeiting”. It was a stressful day, to say the least. For those not familiar with the Liberty Dollar incident, In November of 2007, federal officials raided the group’s headquarters nestled in a strip mall and seized all documents and the gold and silver that backed up the paper certificates and digital currency being distributed through the Liberty Services website. The Justice Department asserted that Von NotHaus was placing gold and silver coins, along with precious metals currency, into circulation with the purpose of mixing them “into the current money of the United States.”

To be clear, NotHaus made some serious mistakes, including pressing his coins to look semi-similar to standard federal currency, and also using language which could be interpreted to insinuate that his currency was “legal tender”. There are many barter networks in the U.S. that use gold and silver that do not have these kinds of problems with the government simply because they are careful not to make the same blunders.

However, it wasn’t the conviction itself that struck me, so much as the language of the prosecutor, U.S. Attorney Anne Tompkins, in her post trial statement. Let me reprint my favorite parts for you here:

“Attempts to undermine the legitimate currency of this country are simply a unique form of domestic terrorism,”

“While these forms of anti-government activities do not involve violence, they are every bit as insidious and represent a clear and present danger to the economic stability of this country,”

“We are determined to meet these threats through infiltration, disruption and dismantling of organizations which seek to challenge the legitimacy of our democratic form of government.”

Some in the Liberty Movement have interpreted this statement to be a warning to all of us that the Federal Government is declaring open season on alternative currencies. Others see it as a preliminary move towards the confiscation of all privately owned gold and silver. And yet others see the statement as dire prophecy, now cowering behind their 1040’s at the thought of the smallest barter transactions, as if the IRS is the all seeing eye of Sauron waiting to catch them in the act of trading apples for oranges and sending agents to crush them with their slimy orc-like fists of doom.

Perhaps I am the only one, but in contrast, I see the prosecutor’s statement as an expression of blatant fear. I’ll explain, but first, let’s dissect the nonsensical and irrational idiocy behind the saber rattling of Anne Tompkins.

First, U.S. prosecutors prevailed over NotHaus on a conviction of COUNTERFEITING! Unless I am confused, and he was using his silver currency to fashion a McGuyver-esque thermonuclear sound money bomb, it is more than just a stretch to try to equate his actions with domestic terrorism. In fact, the post trial statements of Tompkins are so insane it makes one question her level of paranoia, and perhaps her prescription drug habits. After finding no obvious hint of crazy eyed drool mouth in her photographs, I realized that perhaps she was not a zealot, but simply a messenger.

My feeling (and this is only an intuitive notion) is that Tompkins had little to do with the writing of those statements, or had much “coaching” from the Department of Homeland Security, which has been expanding its absurd definition of terrorism to include almost anyone who does not agree with the philosophies of establishment elites and corporate global banks. Even returning military veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan have been listed as possible domestic terrorist threats. Why not proponents of gold and silver?

What we see here is the not so subtle conditioning of average Americans towards categorizing certain innocuous behaviors as being related to possible criminal or terrorist motives. Owning guns is anti-social, and you are a naughty bad person for liking big boom boom stick. What’s that? A pocket Constitution!? Didn’t McVeigh or one of the 9/11 hijackers carry around something like that? You have a survival garden? Hmm, that sounds fishy. I better call the FDA and make sure everything you’re doing is on the up and up. You want to trade gold and silver? Privately?! That’s obviously “black market” barter, and you are the reason the economy is so unpleasant. I don’t get as many food stamps and free big brother goodies as I used to, and I blame you and your dastardly sense of self sufficiency! The IRS should have your head! And so it goes…

So, I promote private barter networking and precious metals to safeguard communities from impending inflationary crisis, and am therefore a “non-violent domestic terrorist which represents a clear and present danger to the economic stability of this country”? How does Tompkins or anyone else, with a straight face, declare alternative markets and sound money as a danger to economic stability, when the U.S. economy has already been annihilated by the derivatives bubble conjured by international banks and the private Federal Reserve? What about the constant fiat injections by our central bank which have created an atmosphere prime for dollar devaluation and hyperinflation? Why in the hell hasn’t the U.S. Attorneys Office or Anne Tompkins placed the terrorist label squarely on the doorstep of JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, HSBC, or the Fed itself? I mean, if we are going to start equating the destabilization of the economy with white Al-Qaeda, then let’s be fair at least. Global banks have had far more to do with our financial downfall than gold or silver trade ever will.

What about the follow up chest beating proclamations of “infiltration and disruption” of any organization which seeks to “challenge the legitimacy of our democratic form of government”?

Wow. Isn’t that comment loaded with bile and stupidity. To begin with, if anyone, including Tompkins, can show me how our current form of government is legitimately “democratic” while both major parties are headed by globalists and corporatists who promote the same exact ideology and support the same exact legislation, while refusing to represent even a minority of Americans beyond the elite, then I welcome them to try. (By the way, Tompkins, I know they didn’t teach you this in public school, and probably not in college either, but America was founded as a REPUBLIC, not a democracy.)

If the IRS…

U.S. Mint Suspends Sales of Silver Eagles.

This news was initially reported by Patriot News Radio, which you can listen to in this video clip. While the information is true and current as displayed on the U.S. mint page here, it is not anything new. The Mint has not sold uncirculated American Eagle silver coins directly on their site for two years, but has continued minting “bullion coins” that are distributed to dealers.
I called the U.S. Mint and they confirmed that they did not produce American Eagle Silver Uncirculated coins in the past two years and thus far in 2011 have no plans to re-start production. They also clarified that they are still producing proof Silver Eagle coins, but they have numismatic value and carry a much higher premium.
While the hype and rumors are misleading, I think the takeaway is still the same – physical buying is overwhelming supply. Strong demand for Silver Eagles pushed sales to an all-time record of 6.4 million ounces during the month of January. This number is 50% higher than any prior month in the U.S. Mint’s 26 years of published sales history. The latest data also shows that February sales set another all-time record for that particular month and the 7th highest monthly sales ever.

But the truly significant point, as discussed in the last edition of the Gold Stock Bull newsletter, is that those 6.4 million coins represent nearly 20% of total domestic mine supply. The US mines only about 40 million ounces a year. If sales continue at this pace, 100% of all silver mined will be exhausted by Summer on just this one product, which typically represents only 5% of total silver usage.
U.S. law requires that the mint use domestic supply for gold coins and this is thought to also apply to silver, although there is some ambiguity. So either Congress will need to pass a new law to allow the American Silver Eagle to be struck from foreign mined silver or they will run out of silver supply for minting. Here is the current message on the Mint’s website regarding uncirculated American Silver Eagles:

Production of United States Mint American Eagle Silver Uncirculated Coins continues to be temporarily suspended because of unprecedented demand for American Eagle Silver Bullion Coins. Until recently, all available silver bullion blanks were being allocated to the American Eagle Silver Bullion Coin Program, as the United States Mint is required by Public Law 99-61 to produce these coins “in quantities sufficient to meet public demand . . . .”

Although the demand for precious metal coins remains high, the increase in supply of planchets—coupled with a lower demand for bullion orders in August and September—allowed the United States Mint to meet public demand and shift some capacity to produce numismatic versions of the American Eagle One Ounce Silver Proof Coin.

However, because of the continued demand for American Eagle Silver Bullion Coins, 2010-dated American Eagle Silver Uncirculated Coins will not be produced.

The United States Mint will resume production of American Eagle Silver Uncirculated Coins once sufficient inventories of silver bullion blanks can be acquired to meet market demand for all three American Eagle Silver Coin products.

So far they have not been able to acquire the necessary inventory, now running into the third year of this issue. The problem with this excuse is that the Mint could procure “sufficient inventories of silver bullion blanks” if they were willing to pay a higher price. And as others have pointed out, by stopping the production of US Silver Eagle Coins, the Mint is in violation of Public Law 99-61 which requires them to produce these coins “in quantities sufficient to meet public demand . . . ”
Continued shortages are likely to send premiums on Silver Eagles soaring, particularly if the Mint has to stop production at some point. Despite silver breaking out to 31-year highs, it still has much further to go. It has yet to reach its nominal high around $50 or inflation-adjusted high around $150. If you haven’t secured physical silver in your possession, you might want to get on it while you still can.
By Jason Hamlin

© 2012 Creativity and Ethics Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha
SEO Powered by Platinum SEO from Techblissonline p-2aCpFRwwOYzPA