John, in previous correspondence, you have in essence declared that the Federal Reserve Note became imaginary in 1971 when the Silver Certificate was abandoned.

[Nope: the dollar became imaginary. Before that you still had a scrap of reality to the idea of "dollar", since you could trade a FRN, or your bank balance - for a silver certificate, and then the silver Cert for a Constitutional silver dollar, according to the truthful and meaningful contract written out on the silver certificate.]

I completely agree with the idea that the FRN became less stable, but completely disagree with the concept that the FRN is now, or ever was, imaginary.

[Please try to keep distinct in your mind the piece of paper and the definition/idea of dollar. They have a relationship but they are not the same. One represents the other in a certain way, but not the other way around.]

The qualification I seek to establish is that the trade value of the Gold or Silver Certificate is identical to trading with Federal Reserve Notes. Both of the FRN and Gold Certificates are essentially worthless scrip taken by themselves, divorced from their accepted trade value as symbols. That is, the FRN and Gold Certificates are at their essence both tokens that represent value, but in themselves have little inherent physical value. As tokens of exchange, as contracts representing value produced, they are redeemable for actual consumable value in the market.

[It is true the two pieces of paper are valued in the marketplace for complex reasons, and in a certain way, I grant they function the same. Don't forget the main difference though, for each paper folks will be willing to trade you an indistinct amount of rice (or any Stuff), but the Gold Cert also functions as a legal title to a distinct and definable quantity of measurable substance. The representative FRN paper, is only assumed to be redeemable for a bank owing you the indicated quantity of SOMETHING WE CANNOT DEFINE, DETECT, OR DESCRIBE. Which they also cannot repay. There is that difference in tangibility, and in legal debt. FRN and the dollar it represents is only SAID by the Govt/Banking partnership to be legal tender at the moment to cancel public and private debts. In other words, you may not demand to actually be paid in anything more substantial than the dollar unless it is clearly spelled out in a specific contract of trade.]

But, there is a legal distinction between the gold/silver certificates and FRNs. The gold/silver certificate are legally redeemable for gold and silver upon demand. Thus, the gold/silver certificates have the possibility of redemption for an alternative valuable substance. Of course the value of such an alternative is qualified by the fact that few people need silver or gold for anything vital to their survival or utility. And, the fact is that the amount of gold/silver in storage for possible redemption is probably only a Fraction of the total number of gold/silver certificates in circulation.

[And you have got that right, then and now -- 1964 and 2011. Much of the world's gold/silver that is supposedly trading in the market - does not exist, though their are certificates of title for it.]

Nevertheless, gold/silver certificate money is more trustworthy in its unit of value than the FRN, because of its dual value-redemption. Obviously, any system with a redundant system, a backup, an alternative function capability installed to prevent failure will be more reliable, less susceptible to failure, than system without redundancy installed. Thus, the alternate redemption of Gold/Silver Certificates makes the FRN less reliable as a symbol of wealth, since it has only the redemption of an increment of “All-Value” as its underlying value

[But the increment, the measurement of value is not subject to covenant, nothing is guaranteed, specified.]

But, less reliable, does not translate into “no value”, “imaginary”, or “fraud”, which are some of the words you have used to describe the FRN

[Never said, "no value, and only "fraud" because deceit regarding Measure and Substance is allowed to stand, instead of being clarified.]

The argument to follow shows that there is a logical family connection between the FRN and Gold/Silver Certificate. The Gold/Silver Certificate is in essence no different than the FRN, except for the fact that it has a redundant system of value redemption, which the FRN does not have. To the extent that the FRN is less stable, I completely agree with everything you say about a gold backed currency. To the extent that you call the FRN imaginary, I totally disagree with your concept, declaration, and belief.

[The gold has value. The FRN has value. The dollar has value. but they are all distinct, they are not the same. Gold has an identifiable substance. The FRN consists of a very scientifically and exactly defined substance that is distinct from its value. The dollar the FRN represents has no substance that can be identified. This makes the dollar different, and unique from the other two. Gold has value, but doesn't represent anything else.]

Comparison of Gold and “All Value”: Gold has a high inherent value, because people value gold for its beauty, weight, scarcity, durability, and utility.

[Much of this comes from the phenomena that it has substance that can be identified and verified and falsified, that has properties that can be measured. All these the dollar lacks (not the FRN).] gold has an inherent soul value, and therefore ownership of gold gives it trade value [dollar and FRN have soul value.]

Likewise, “All-Value” also has an inherent soul value, because people value it for its beauty, utility, survival/protection, joy/entertainment, etc. Ownership of an increment of “All-Value” thus has a trade value. The point being, “All-Value” has an inherent trade value, just as gold has an inherent trade value.

Comparison of Gold Certificates with the FRN: Governments have made gold certificates to represent stores of gold, and those gold certificates are trade-able for units of All-Value, or units of gold.

[There is no requirement that it has be be a government or a bank that issues certificates of any kind. Any owner of something can issue a certificate/covenant/title for something he owns and men are free to give these in trade.]

Government has made FRNs, and those certificates are trade-able for units or All-Value, or units of Gold.

[But to make a true and equal comparison, you would have to remove much of the Contract Sentence from the Certificate, so that it would just be redeemable for whatever people were willing to redeem it for, since there would not longer be any relationship to any quantity, measure, or substance, other than the piece of paper and the understood quantities of those pieces paper in the marketplace and the average perception that others and the IRS would accept these in the future for public and private debts.]

Gold certificates are “Imaginary Money”, just as much as FRNs are imaginary money. But, both gold certificates and FRNS are real and valuable, because they can both be redeemed for an amount of gold or a quantity of All-Value.

[The Cert defines what it can be redeemed for. No one defines or promises what the FRN or Dollar will be redeemed for.]

Gold certificates and Fiat money are both real, and/or both imaginary, depending on which perspective/frame you wish to consider. Pick one, and I will agree with you.

[People REALLY value goods and services, and things that are less material or tangible than "goods", but saying someone has a legal obligation to give you a quantity of measurable substance upon redemption of its symbol is still a different thing.]

Gold and FRNs are both Real and Metaphysical: You can’t make a true statement, or meaningful comparison, if you declare gold real and “All Value” imaginary.

[But you can, in perfectly-understood English words, understand the real difference between them. One is an element created by God at Creation, the other is an idea, a Category in our minds. One can be touched, weighed, measured, can only be in one place at one time, etc.]

Likewise, you can’t choose to call “All-Value” real and gold imaginary. Both gold and All-Value have elements of real realness and metaphysical imaginary-ness. The value of gold is just as imaginary/subjective as the value of All-Value (i.e. all goods and services). The value of both is subjective. The value of a gold certificate is just as imaginary as the value of an FRN. The reality of Gold is just as real as the reality of “All Value”. There is in essence no philosophic or substantive difference between Gold and “All-Value”.

[Only if AllValue is the same thing as the goods and services that we are talking about that every person values slightly differently. Can't we separate the good or service and its measure -- from the average value that someone places on it?]

The difficulty in defining the value of “All-Value”: Granted, it is harder to quantify, measure, and define the substance of All-Value than the QMS of gold, but both do have measure, quantity, and substance. The exact measure of All-Value may be seen only from a God’s-eye view, but even from the human perspective, All-Value is real – even though from any man’s perspective, we can all only see a small portion of it. The value of All-Value is metaphysical and subjective, as is the value of Gold. Both Gold and All-Value are truly real in their substantive existence, and both Gold and “All-Value” are metaphysical when considering their value to the human soul.

[As you think through this, I imagine that you have brought in the idea of God, appreciating that He might be the only thing that stands outside of what we have in the pool of All-That-Is-Valued. Not that people don't value Him, and His love for them, but because He is truly transcendent. He stands outside of His Creation. Most everything else we can place inside the circle of what men value, which includes everything we are using as money, be it gold, silver, rice, or the various fiat currencies of the world. Let's just be careful we don't inadvertently put the dollar itself, or a committee of men who deceitfully pretend to create something from nothing outside the pool of AllValue, as if they stood in the same class with God.]

The Subjective Nature of Value: Everything on earth has value (that is, everything tangible and intangible has utility, pleasure, and benefit to the soul in some way), and thus the sum of all goods and services has value.

[You either have to admit that "dollar" is in that pool, so that you cannot get the {AllValue} to hold static, while you adjust (increase/decrease) its ratio vis-a-vis the Money Stock. Otherwise, you have to accept that Dollar is not valued, and so, is not part of what is in the AllValue Pool.]

Likewise, the unit increment of gold, and total of all gold has a value. But, the value of gold is just as imaginary as the value of “All-Value”. Value is subjective regardless of the object under consideration. Both gold and All-Value are very real, because both are objective, both gold and All-Value are subjective in their value because all men judge their soul benefit differently.

[I can understand that the value-of-gold and the value of AllValue is subjective. But tell me again, how AllValue is objective, since by definition, it is a Value-Type-Of-Thing. What objective unit of measure do you use to measure how big/little AllValue is (or any portion thereof). And of what common Substance is AllValue, unless it is Value -- which we already agree is a subjective type-of-thing?]

The symbolic nature of gold certificates and FRNs: When you trade in gold certificates, you are trading in representative/symbolic money. Gold Certificates have a dual value representation, 1) a measure of gold that the certificate can be redeemed for, and 2) a measure of “All-Value” proportional to the total number of gold certificates in circulation, and the total amount of All-Value available for consumption. Alternatively, when trading in FRNs, trading in symbolic/representative money it represents only one value, 1) a fractional percentage of All Value (which includes gold/silver and all things precious). The value of the FRN corresponds to the ratio of All-Value to Total # of FRNs in circulation. Both gold certificates and FRNs will inflate and deflate in their substance-redemptive ability based on the number of them in circulation. And yes, the gold certificate is also susceptible to inflation by excess printing. The trustworthiness of the gold/silver certificate for gold/silver physical redemption, is as dependent upon the trustworthiness of the stores of gold and printers of certificates as is the FRN. Thus, the trade value of the gold certificate and the FRN are both dependent on the ratio of the number of certificate units in circulation to substance available. Possibly the gold certificate would be more stable because of the perception that it could be redeemed for alternate value, but ultimately, its trade value will be largely determined by the number in circulation compared to the total amount of All-Value available for consumption.

[Think of this. We can demand retribution/reimbursement/reparations from the gold-cert-issuer who violates the contract that there will be one-for-one correspondence between the measure of gold promised on the gold cert. How would you identify, prosecute, and punish the dollar issuer who violates the contract of the Federal Reserve Note? How would we know if they issued more FRNS than the value they were promised to redeem? How would we know if the the dollar-issuers (distinct from the FRN) had issued more dollars than the value they represented?]

Ultimately, both gold and All-value have only subjective value, and all forms of money are symbols representing the right to exchange the symbol for an increment of “All-Value”.

[How big of an increment of the AllValue does the value represented by the symbol (dollar) authorize the dollar holder in a trade? Is this not a non-definable quantity of the subjective value some soul decides?]