|
As a thought experiment, suppose
you knew you were going to die three months from now. Further, suppose some
multibillionaire hears of your impending death and decides to make you an
offer: He will produce a 30-second TV commercial of your final message to the
world and air it during the 2012 Super Bowl and the Summer Olympics in
London. It will also be aired at appropriate times during the presidential
debates next year. In addition, he will run a highly creative ad campaign
encouraging people to watch your parting message.
So, here's the deal: You've got
thirty seconds. You'll have a big audience. What would you say?
I knew immediately what my message
would be, though not exactly how I would say it. I thought about what my
message implied about my life and the world, and came away satisfied with my
decision.
Then I considered what others might
say. I could easily imagine any number of people issuing a message of love.
Stop hating and love. Make love, not war. They might even recite the popular
Biblical passage, 1 Corinthians 13: "If I speak in the
tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding
gong or a clanging cymbal."
I recalled Mel Gibson's final
message as Sir William Wallace in the movie Braveheart. For leading a revolt
against the treacherous King Edward I of England, Wallace has been brought to
the Tower of London for public torture and execution. Eager to see a traitor
get his just punishment, the crowd watches as he's half-hanged, racked, and
disemboweled. Before the final deathblow he's given one last chance to
confess his treason. By this time the crowd is calling for mercy. Already
near death, Wallace summons the last of his strength and shouts "Freedom!"
before the ax comes down on his neck.
Perhaps you would secure the rights
to play Gibson's final word as the core of your parting message. You could do
much worse.
I thought of what certain others
might say — Obama, Hillary, Krugman,
Bernanke. What would be the Fed chairman's parting words? Would he decline
the offer? He probably would, but if he didn't, I can't imagine him shouting
"Inflate!" or "Accommodate!" And yet this
is what the man does for a living. Shouldn't he choose to die supporting the
values he has lived by? Can you imagine Obama shouting "Change!"
or Hillary shouting "It takes a village!"? Didn't think so.
Or how about Krugman calling for perpetual bubbles
so we don't have to fake a space invasion?
Others might take the opportunity
to tell a joke, on the grounds that the world needs more laughter. The danger
there is that no one would think it's funny. Some would encourage people to
care better for their children, as they are the future. Those soured by the
whole human race might tell the world off. A few might smile pleasantly at
the camera and say nothing, as they did throughout their lives. Smiles
shouldn't be dismissed lightly. We couldn't go through our days without them.
The possibilities are endless.
My Message
The world has seen gold soar in
price for over a decade because people grew increasingly distrustful of the
appointed money printers, especially the ones at the Federal Reserve. For
many investors, I suspect, gold has been little more than a safe port in a
storm. When the storm passes, it's on to something else. I wonder if they've
ever considered what it would be like if they didn't need an "inflation
hedge" or a "safe haven."
That would be my point. In my
thirty seconds of fame I would tell people they need to be using a market-based money. Facing the camera with an American
gold eagle in one hand, I might say, "See this? Can't print it. But this
— " I would add while holding a Fed dollar in my other hand,
"can be printed to send your loved ones off to unnecessary wars, bail
out politically connected corporations, and drain your savings. You need a
monetary system that works for you, not them. Fight for it!"
The Mises
Institute offers an extensive library of literature explaining the economics
behind an autonomous commodity-coin system. But you don't need to be an
Austrian to appreciate the value of gold. In 1914 Europe went to war. Three
years later it was officially a world war. For this to happen
the belligerents (with the exception of the late-entry United States) had to
go off the gold standard. It wasn't the men doing the fighting who made the
decision. It was the politicians who sent them to fight — and die in
the millions. And what did they die for? The rest of the bloody century, and
now the new century with the world still at war and teetering on financial
collapse. The killing had to be funded, and that meant gold had to be
abandoned.
Isn't it ironic that gold and the
gold standard have been dubbed the barbarous relic when it's the paper
systems that are forced on us that are reducing the world to barbarism?
George
F. Smith
Read
his book : The Flight of the Barbarous Relic
Visit his website
Read
his blog
|
