[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
Why ? Simply because the money power had decreed : Thou shalt not make honest the money system !
Until George F. Warren, farm authority of the New York College of Agriculture at Cornell University,
Ithica, New York, informed several farm organizations how other currencies were “stacked” against the
American farmer, and these farm organizations persuaded the President to listen to Warren, nothing was
done toward changing the price of an ounce of gold in New York. London, the British Colonies and
Argentina had raised the price of an ounce of Gold. Argentina started to raise the price of gold in
December of 1929. London and the British Colonies were raising it from September, 1931, on. Yet,
when America started to do the same thing for the sole reason that we were forced to do exactly what
other raw material exporting countries had done, the uninformed and paid “economists” decried the
policy and called it “inflation.” They had not the common honesty to say that we were forced to raise
the price of gold or compel our farmers to suffer a terrific price disadvantage in world raw material
export markets, especially at Liverpool and Manchester. They deliberately obscured the plain fact that
changing the currency price of an ounce of gold is not changing the domestic monetary quantity, hence,
not inflation in any sense of the word. It is in converting the proceeds of export sales, particularly of
our raw commodities, into our own currency (dollars) that the price of an ounce of gold is important. If
gold is lower in New York than it is in London or in the British Colonies, the American farmer suffers.
Until the farmers, in their good sense, saw that Warren was right, no one dared to challenge the
international bankers’ right to voice and rigidly enforce the above commandment.
The Warren “experiment” (so-called) worked, but the cohorts of the Money Power, rulers of the duped
Brain Trusters, got to work immediately and before three months’ benefit had been experienced in 1933
from the operation of the farmer-endorsed Warren monetary policy, and before gold had been raised to
a full parity—they had maneuvered things so that the President was mysteriously forced to throw the
farmers out, again to be devoured financially by the disparity between farm and city prices, the
difference between what the farmer gets for his products and what he has to pay for the products of the
city.
“Prices,” remember, reflect the balance between the supply of things people need, and the purely
artificial supply of what people use to buy what they need, namely, money.
BONDS (Debts) — We have seen clearly that money is a demand claim for wealth. That demand claim
may be exchanged for physical consumer goods at the will of the holder. But if an individual does not
wish to exchange his money for some form of consumer goods, he may exchange his demand claim
(money) for a time claim (bond). He may buy a time claim entitling him to wealth at some future time.
In usual language, he may buy a bond.
If the money which he turned over, that is, the demand claim, was used to create capital goods
(instruments of further production) to be honestly used in further production—a factory, railroad, etc.,
etc. — that bond is a sound claim, provided the contract stipulates that the bond shall be repaid out of
profits of the business earned during the useful life of the asset itself.
No bond should be outstanding after a given capital asset (instrument of production) has passed out of
use through depreciation or obsolescence. The annual payment on a bond should include a small
amount of interest and a partial return of the principal.
Any bond outstanding beyond the period in which the assets against which it was issued are in actual
http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/coogan_g/coogan_09.html (10 of 20)5.4.2006 9:08:42
Gertrude Coogan, Money Creators, ch 9,
use in the processes of production, is unsound.
Bonds bear interest. Interest follows the law of mathematics. If a bond were issued and allowed to run
beyond the useful life of the asset upon which it is a claim, the interest claim would run on after the
asset had ceased to exist. This, of course, is a fundamental fallacy. However, we have some striking
examples of bonds being issued against assets, the useful life of which could not conceivably endure
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
