• Home
  • About
    • Welcome to the Institute
    • It’s Time
    • What is the Gold Standard?
    • Goals of The Gold Standard Institute
    • The Gold Standard Institute Emblem
    • Meet the People of The Gold Standard Institute
  • Gold Basics
    • Buying Gold and Silver
    • Commercial Paper vs. Real Bills
    • The Definition of Money
    • The Nature of Money
    • What is a Real Bill?
  • Journal
  • Archives
  • Classroom
  • Media
  • FAQ
  • Contact
Home > Authors > Sebastian Younan

Why This Institute Matters

January 13, 2015 by Philip Barton

Imagine for a brief moment what our world would look like if slavery was never recognised as immoral and outlawed? That human lives were seen as disposable merchandise to be traded at the discretion and temper of the elite masters. The thought seems distant and almost unimaginable but, some mere 150 years ago (and even in certain backwaters today) this was common practice endorsed by the state. It would have been a terrifying reality to face.

Wikipedia defines slavery as a “legal or economic system under which people are treated as property”. This definition is short but accurately defines what slavery is. It is interesting to note that, though the definition includes economic systems, the USSR and/or Red China are noticeably missing as examples of slavery. In those two cases the claim of ownership, rather than being localised, is broadly applied. The individual is strictly property of the state. The ruling dictators have absolute authority over the people with all rights being abolished.

The society which we live and participate in is not, fortunately, a dictatorship. As much as certain members within the gold space claim contrary, we have not arrived at that point just yet. But if the dangerous trend continues which we find ourselves on, we may well one day wake up and discover that we have arrived at the statist “utopia”.

Tyranny does not occur in a vacuum, it requires constant debasement of that which opposes it. Of course what opposes tyranny is not the rivalling mob or wannabe dictator, but liberty. Liberty is the only opposition to tyranny and as such, the economic system which is a requirement of liberty is capitalism. The form that tyranny uses to takes hold of a nation or society manifests itself into three key areas being defense, the media and monetary system.

The passing of gun control laws ensure that the citizens cannot defend themselves materially against an aggressor. Instead of the right to self-defense one now finds themselves having the right to make a phone call.

The media is further controlled by the state for the simple reason that good ideas displace bad ones. A tyrant cannot compete with ideas which challenge it so the media must be silenced.

The monetary system is seized by the state to ensure that the citizens cannot protect themselves financially against the states wishes. That is why the Gold Standard Institute (GSI) is relevant.

The GSI’s mission is more than simply monetary reform. It is a battle against the ever expanding and encroaching power of the state. It is the night watchmen against the abuse of power by the state.

For my family, friends and colleagues, do not forget the importance of this institute. If enough people whisper the truth, its echo can be heard

Sebastian Younan – President the Gold Standard Institute Australia

Filed Under: Sebastian Younan

Retiring

May 22, 2014 by Philip Barton

by Sebastian Younan

The Australian political arena is currently in the midst of a long and drawn out debate consuming newspaper headlines and television commentary. The debate concerns the proposed changes to the national retirement age. Australia’s Treasurer Joe Hockey has indicated that the retirement age, to be handed down in next month’s budget, will be raised from 67 years old to 70 years old – starting in 2023. The proposal has created both friend and foe as all sides of the political landscape opine. Interestingly though, for all the talk that has been going on – and there has been an earful – it can all be summarised as largely non-speak as all sides seem to be agreeing with each other on principle.

Though this move is being spun as a requirement of a population which is living longer, the more economically savvy would probably realise that the Treasurer is representing a treasury which in fact has no treasure (so they will most likely mortgage the unborn with greater and greater deficits). The tragedy of this debate is not what is being said, but rather what is not being asked. This publication will ask, what will not, and answer, what should be:

1.    Should there be a government supported retirement pension?

No. A government cannot guarantee a pension any more than it can guarantee the weather. In providing pension support, the government must expropriate the resources of those who are still working to support those who don’t. This is a fact, as a government is incapable of producing. By expropriating the resources of another, the government invariably violates property rights. This is a contradictory function of government. How can the government defend individual rights and simultaneously violate property rights? The answer is it cannot. One destroys the other.

2.    But how do you provide a pension for those during senescence?

Like any other material good, an individual must be freely able to pursue the value they require. Retirement like any other good must be earned.  No one can guarantee a lifestyle.  Retirement requires one to forgo immediate consumption for the future.

3.    But is it right to force those who are currently receiving a pension back out of retirement?

No. For those who are currently in a government supported retirement the government should continue to support those individuals. This is because they have been taxed in the past under the pretence that they will be able to access this support in the future. The government must uphold its obligation to those dependent upon the system (and those close to being so) but allow younger generations to leave the system.

4.    Leave the system? What does this mean practically?

This means allowing individuals to be able to support themselves by their own effort.  This would entail reducing government taxes and services whilst repealing most forms of regulation and government control.

5.    That would be revolutionary and cause great distress, would there be anything else?

It is true that this would cause great change as individual autonomy is respected, but it would transform the society from one of dependence to one of mutually beneficial cooperation. The real distress will occur is the current trend of further control and deteriorating liberty continues.

The final requirement would require freely circulating gold and silver coinage, which is to abandon legal tender laws. This is no small or easy task. Yet the monetary system is in terrible treat of implosion under its tower of irredeemable paper. The rediscovery of a gold standard must take place with an introduction of gold bonds trading side by side with government bonds. That should allow private pension funds an opportunity to bring solvency to their funds.

6.    Why are gold bonds necessary?

They are necessary as, besides those dependent upon government retirement, many individuals, believing that they were being responsible for themselves, have invested their retirement savings into funds which are themselves heavily dependent upon government bonds (consider the 30 year T bond with its declining yield as pension funds today rush in for whatever yield they can find, further flattening the yield).  By allowing gold bonds to trade side by side with government bonds, these funds will be given the opportunity to rebalance their portfolios.   

7.   Why can’t the government merely balance the budget like it has done in the past and still continue providing pension support?

The ability to balance the budget, especially for the US government, is almost impossible as the irredeemable monetary system is predicated upon the expansion of greater and greater debt. Balancing the budget will not solve the medium to long term instability of the monetary system.

8.    So without having a revolution, what can the concerned individual do to prepare for their twilight years?

Owning gold and silver as part of one’s money holding is wise. The less debt one accumulates is optimal especially as the economy slides towards deflation.

Yet one should actively inform friends and colleagues about the merit of a free society. Consider writing to your Member of Parliament or congressman expressing you concerning with the tyranny of the state. It is never too late to do the right thing.

It is most likely that the retirement pension age will be raised to 70 years old. You will hear both political sides cry wolf but you will not hear any defend the individual. In a free society the government would have no interest in the private affairs of its citizen’s retirement. To observe how far one has drifted, consider how both sides of politics believes that you are their property to dispose of.  

 

Filed Under: Sebastian Younan

An International Gold Standard Is No Gold Standard At All

November 25, 2013 by Philip Barton

Since 1971 the irredeemable monetary system has been in a constant state of paralysis. Over the last decade this state has only further deteriorated bringing global trade into unchartered and dangerous territory, crippling the global economy and desolating entire cities (Detroit is only one such tragedy). For the astute readers of this journal, the ills of the irredeemable monetary system are of no mystery, thanks in part to this publication which has relentlessly crusaded to intellectually illuminate this shadowy field. Yet it would be intellectually dishonest to make the claim that this publication is the only one. There are in fact many groups which advocate a gold standard; the Rothbard “100% backers” are just one example of the diverse array of gold standard advocates.

It is no secret that the Gold Standard Institute (GSI) advocates a particular type of gold standard, specifically an unadulterated gold standard which rests on the principle of the separation of state and economics. Yet unfortunately there is much confusion amongst our contemporaries concerning the kind of gold standard which will alleviate our monetary troubles.     

One such group have been those commentators calling for an “international gold standard” to settle trade between countries and corporations as a relief to the dollar standard. The idea is a neo-Bretton Woods Agreement where countries would tie their currencies to gold and simply balance each account quarterly in gold bullion. This is a peculiar proposition in the realm of monetary history based upon unsound and impractical economics.

The first obvious flaw is the expression “international gold standard”. Money as a concept is universal to man irrespective to his geographical location. As pointed out in previous articles in this publication, gold is money. Prior to the dismantlement of the classical gold standard, if one held US Dollars and exchanged them for British Pounds, the “exchange rate” was merely the ratio of US Dollars to gold relative to Pounds to gold. There were no political trade agreements in place sanctioning such a trade except the laws of nature (in this case the ratio of currency to a weighting of gold). Since gold is money, by its very nature it has to be the most marketable good meaning it must be “international”- or universally accepted. Hence the advocates of an “international gold standard” are merely advocating a monetary cartel of sorts. The term “international” should be interchanged with “exclusive” as all are not are allowed to freely participate. This means that an international gold standard is just an exclusive arrangement between various entities for purposes more attune to political favour than economic virtue.  

Such a monetary system contradicts the entire philosophical case for a gold standard; the defence of individual rights a la laissez faire capitalism. An international gold standard which is currently being advocated ignores the principles of a free market by its exclusive nature. Money is a tool strictly developed by the free action of man. Advocating a gold standard outside and apart from a free market is an entirely pointless affair. It reduces the status of gold to any other commodity, whether it is coal, oil or pork-bellies.

Nevertheless, setting the philosophical aspect aside, such a monetary arrangement will not work as it flies in the face of elementary economics. An international gold standard is an ill-conceived and highly problematic proposition for the same fundamental reason as the current monetary arrangement: One central planner’s policy for another. Bretton Woods collapsed as a result of the arbitraging forces between the fixed currency ratios, or price, to a weight of gold. To advocate a neo-Bretton Woods agreement would be akin to advocating just another type of disaster. Keeping in mind that Bretton Woods collapsed before high speed trading algorithms were off the ground, if a neo-Bretton Woods agreement were to be formalised and introduced, its greatest achievement would be for the agreement to survive longer than a month.

The practical virtue of an unadulterated gold standard is not the control of the quantity of money but rather stability of interest rates – a point almost entirely lost in economic academia. The quantity of money is almost immaterial to the stability of an economy or currency. An “international gold standard” has no answer to the issue of interest rate stability which has brought the global economy to financial ruin. Conceivably such a monetary arrangement would require assiduous interest rate fluctuation to balance out the excessive arbitrage and overcome speculation between gold, the currency in question and every other currency – something which no man or superman would be able to do leading to the systems eventual cannibalism. Governments would be forced to devalue their currencies to gold, most likely at an ever increasing pace, in order to preserve their own gold reserves. The entire affair would alleviate none of the present problems and only advance the case of those adversaries of gold and a free market.

An unadulterated gold standard is the ideal, one which the GSI strives to champion. Yet the process of realising and implementing an unadulterated gold standard is not a Sunday night presidential broadcast. It requires meticulous attention and transparency – not in managing it, but in introducing it. That is no small task.

Sebastian Younan

President – the Gold Standard Institute Australia

 

 

 

 

 

Filed Under: Sebastian Younan, Uncategorized

Categories

Navigation

  • Home
  • About
  • Gold Basics
  • Journal
  • Archives
  • Classroom
  • Media
  • FAQ
  • Contact

Recent News

  • Missouri Bill Would Take Steps Toward Treating Gold and Silver as Money
  • Reflections Over 2022
  • Gold is Back in Circulation
  • How Sound Money Won the Battle of Yorktown—and Saved the American Revolution
  • US Congressman Proposes Bill To Reintroduce The Gold Standard

Contact Us

philipbarton@goldstandardinstitute.net

Related Websites

Gold Standard Institute US

Copyright © 2013. The Gold Standard Institute International. All rights reserved. Disclosures.
Website by Claire de Jong