Discount Gold and Silver Trading
A Weekly Newsletter for Sunday, June 10th, A.D. 2012
Between Friday, June 1st, and Friday, June 8th, the bid prices for:

Gold fell 1.9 % from $1,626.30 to $1,594.70
Silver fell 0.5 % from $28.68 to $28.53
Platinum fell 1.1 % from $1,443 to $1,427
Palladium rose 0.0 % from $612 to $613
DJIA rose 3.6 % from 12,118.57 to 12,554.20
NASDAQ rose 4.0 % from 2,747.48 to 2,858.42
NYSE rose 3.6 % from 7,292.23 to 7,553.77
US Dollar Index fell 1.2 % from 82.89 to 81.86
Crude Oil rose 0.4 % from $83.26 to $83.57
The Long Beach Coin , Stamp and Collectible show, the  world’s largest coin show, ended earlier this month on a positive note.  Since 1964 dealers seem to enjoy this program the most and this year broke the record for public attendees.  During the show we saw gold jump each day ending with Friday to show a one-day gain in spot price of $57.90 bringing the settled price of $1621.

The move in coin prices seem to be concentrated on better quality coins in both gold and silver.  Highly sought after were problem free better grade Morgan and Peace Dollars.   As a last resort only those who have found themselves in a financial pickle are selling their higher quality gold coins.

CAC stickered coins are bringing strong premiums.

With this in mind today’s special will include:

MS66 St. Gaudens - Minted from 1907-1933, the $20 gold coin known as the St. Gaudens Double Eagle is considered by many to be the most beautiful type of U.S. coin ever minted. A favorite among investors and collectors, coins from this series have historically continued to appreciate due to their significant role in U.S. history, attractiveness to collectors, and brilliant gold content.
MS66 Morgan Silver Dollar - These superior, high-end MS66 Morgan Silver Dollar gems have it all; dazzling eye-appeal, blazing original mint luster, and beautiful pristine surfaces that exhibit a rich, brilliant shine. The devices are crisp and well struck with lots of wonderful detail throughout. These are very impressive gem graded coins that are sure to please even the most discerning investor. Coins from this series have historically appreciated due to very strong investor demand, attractiveness to collectors, their significant role in U.S. history, and brilliant precious metal content.

Morgan dollar designer George T. Morgan placed an M on both sides of the coin to lay his claim, the first time a designer had done this in U.S. coinage history! The 'M' appears near Lady Liberty's neck on the obverse (front) and on the ribbon's left loop on the reverse (back) side. Morgan's obverse features a stunning portrait of Lady Liberty. The reverse depicts a somewhat lean eagle which led some to nickname the coin the “buzzard dollar.” Morgan Silver Dollars underwent numerous design changes during the 43 year production span. Both the arrow feathers and the eagle's tail feathers on the reverse especially received many subtle yet definitive revisions and as such, spawned an incredible number of Morgan Dollar varieties (VAM types) making these brilliant cartwheels an avid collector's dream!

Total cost of this package  $3,000
Price includes shipping

Total savings …… $160

Call 1-800-375-4188 or visit the Web site at
or email us at:

For the best in pricing and service for gold and silver coins, call Melody at 1-800-375-4188.  Be sure to listen to DGSTC live on Short-wave 7.490Mhz M-F 4:00PM ET, and 9.880 MHz .   Online listen to archives at and American Voice Radio

Discount Gold & Silver Trading Co. provides all forms of precious metals including gold, silver platinum and palladium whether you are buying or selling.  Our inventory includes but not limited to the American Gold, Silver, Platinum Eagle and numismatic products including rare, investment and circulated coins. Silver dollars, silver bars, rounds are on
hand for the silver investor.  Foreign gold is also available.  Call for information regarding your precious metal gold and silver IRA.   1 800 375 4188 

               Demand for Gold

Edited by Alfred Adask

It’s hard to say when the impulse to globalism and one world government began.  Aldous Huxley wrote Brave New World in A.D. 1932 as a work for fiction.  But Huxley travelled in the circles of elitists who were determined, at least in the 1920s, to implement world government and global social engineering.  I have little doubt that Huxley’s Brave New World was based on elitist plans to build what we now call the “New World Order”.
Surely, the powers that favor globalism have been ascendant since WWII.  We’ve seen the rise of fiat currencies—and the loss of gold and silver money—an absolute necessity for globalism.  We’ve seen the United Nations (UN) grow stronger.  We’ve watched the U.S. fiat dollar assume the role of “global reserve currency”—laying the foundation for a single, global currency—another essential for one world government.  Nations around the world have slowly surrendered parts of their sovereignty to entities like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the European Union (EU), the UN, and central banks.  After the USSR collapsed in A.D. 1991, the bi-polar world of the Cold War between the USSR and the US gave way to a mono-polar world ruled by the one remaining super-power:  the US.

Here, in the U.S., the state governments lost their “states’ rights” as the federal government became ever more powerful.  Where “federal cases” were once rare, they’re now routine as federal laws intrude ever deeper into areas once deemed subject only to the authority of a State of the Union.

Recently, the UN has moved to claim sole control the internet.  According to The New York Times, “The proposal is backed by China, Russia, Brazil, India and other UN members, and would give the UN’s International Telecommunication Union (ITU) more control over the governance of the Internet.”  The goal of subjecting the global internet to the control—and taxation—of any single entity (in this case, the U.N.) is evidence of a push for globalism and, especially, centralization of power.

Global free trade has eliminated most tariff barriers and thereby blurred national borders.  Up until A.D. 2008, the world grew increasingly profitable for “internationalists” able to exploit the differences between one nation’s ability to produce goods with low wages and other nations’ access to easy credit.

For most of the past 50 years, all of these phenomena (and others) have marked mankind’s seemingly inexorable march towards global government, a New World Order, the loss of national sovereignty and the centralization of power.

However, while forces favoring centralization of power have predominated since WWII, they haven’t been unchallenged.  Over the past generation, forces favoring national sovereignty, local government and decentralization of power have grown and become increasingly powerful.

The single most shocking evidence of decentralization occurred in A.D. 1991 when the former “evil empire” of the USSR collapsed and splintered into fifteen sovereign states. 

Just as the former Soviet Union disintegrated in A.D. 1991, the EU is currently facing similar forces of disintegration and decentralization.

Here, in the U.S., a recent poll indicates that 24% of the American people believe that States should be allowed to secede and go off on their own.

The post-Cold War, mono-polar world dominated by the US is giving way to a multi-polar world where no single power is globally predominant. 

All of these political realities are evidence of a growing push for decentralization.

The push for decentralization isn’t isolated to particular countries.  It’s global.  According the New York Times (“Europe’s Fade Becomes Drag on Sales for U.S. Companies”),
“As the European crisis intensifies, a growing number of companies in the United States are warning investors that sales in the region are slowing and could get much worse. . . . While most of the focus has been on oppressive debt and debilitated banks in the euro zone, concerns are shifting to the drag that recession in Europe is exerting on the global economy. Over the weekend, President Obama reflected the growing anxiety by saying that Europe’s economy is “starting to cast a shadow on our own as well” and that it was partly to blame for the recent slowdown in job creation in the United States.”
In other words, those who “live by the globalism” (centralization of power) can also “die by the globalism” (centralization of power).  As western, multi-national corporations profited handsomely from global free trade in the 1990s and most of the 2000s, they became increasingly dependent on cheap foreign labor and wealthy domestic consumers.  Whenever either foreign producers or domestic consumers had a problem, globalists profits fell. 

More, these problems weren’t easily resolved because the producers of one country had a substantially different set of interests from the consumers of another country. 

When producers and consumers are in one nation, those consumers and producers tend to be one in the same.  I.e., the man who builds cars on a GM assembly line is also the man who buys GM cars.  Insofar as consumers and producers are identical, both “sides” have a common interest in resolving any economic problem.  This common interest makes solutions relatively easy.

However, when the producers live and work in China and the consumers live in the US, the interests of the two “sides” are far less similar.  What’s good for American consumers is not so obviously good for Chinese producers.  Whenever either side suffers a setback, the other side’s first instinct is to say “screw ‘em”. 

Whenever your consumers and producers are not identical, economic problems can become intractable and nearly insolvable.

Therefore, as centralization grew, dependencies also grew between nations as diverse (and formerly, adverse) as China and the US.  In a “centralized” New World Order, if either nation has a problem, both nations suffer.  In a “brave new,” centralized world, each nation becomes dependent upon and vulnerable to foreign influences that it can’t anticipate or control.  The inability to control the Chinese economy, forces the US to either: 1) seek to create a global power able to control both China and the US economies (centralization of power)—or, 2) to “decouple” from China, restore a national manufacturing base and regain its national independence and sovereignty (decentralization).

According to the BBC (“Russia Contributing to Potential Syria Civil War”),
“Hilary Clinton, the US Secretary of State says Russian policy will contribute to a potential civil war in Syria. Her comments came after Russia and China renewed opposition to tougher UN Security Council action. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has repeated a warning that Syria could be moving towards "catastrophic" civil war, in the wake of the Houla massacre.”
The Syrian government is no longer in control, national divisions are rising to the point of civil war.  What is a “civil war” if not evidence of decentralization—at least in relation to the single nation of Syria? 

What is “opposition to tougher UN action,” if not faint evidence of rising forces of decentralization within the UN? 

The fact that Syria (and other nations) might be heading into a civil war doesn’t prove that the forces of decentralization are ascendant.  But it’s a leaf in the breeze that may help us to see which way the wind’s blowing.

Another leaf:   The Washington Post (“Pressing for OAS changes, leftist governments of 4 Latin American nations quit defense treaty”) reports that Bolivia, Venezuela, Ecuador and Nicaragua announced Tuesday that they’re pulling out of a regional defense treaty called the “Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance”.

Ecuadorean Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino said the treaty, originally signed in A.D. 1947, was created as a US initiative and it’s no longer relevant. The treaty says an armed attack against any OAS member state is to be considered an attack against all of them.  Patino said the four Latin American nations decided “to throw into the trash something that’s no longer useful.”

OK—maybe that mutual defense treaty is outdated and no longer “useful”.  But, on the other hand, there’s something positive to be said for any “mutual defense” agreement.  To rescind such agreement necessarily motivates others to question the motives of those who abandon the treaty.  Do they expect to invade one or more of their neighbors?  Do they expect some foreign force to invade one of their neighbors and don’t want to be called on to help in the defense?  Or are they simply rejecting the disproportionate influence exerted by the one the treaty’s members—the US?  If they’re rejecting the US, they’re rejecting centralization.

For 65 years, that treaty provided a measure of regional “centralization” and stability for Latin America. Without that treaty, decentralization, national sovereignty and political instability are increasingly likely.  Again, this isn’t proof of decentralization, but it is another clue to which way the wind’s blowing.

Russia Today (“Russia and China pull together to counter US Asia drive”) reports that,
“President Vladimir Putin has said Russia will cement its military alliance with China . . . .. The move follows a US pledge to step up its naval presence in Asia in a bid to extend its influence. . . . . The Russian leader said ‘We favor the formation of an open and equal-minded security and cooperation architecture in the region, based on the principles of international law.’ `The strengthening of Sino-Russian relations also serves to counterbalance US influence in Asia.
“Counterbalancing US influence” (which was unchallengeable and predominant in the 1990s) is evidence of global decentralization.  Similarly, a treaty based on “regionalism” rather than globalism is also consistent with decentralization.  As the US sheds the role of world policeman, we can expect to see more decentralization, national and regional fragmentation and an increased tendency to regional wars and domestic revolutions.

The New York Times (“Newspapers Cut Days From Publishing Week”) reports,
“Almost two weeks ago, The Times-Picayune in New Orleans announced that it would cut back its print schedule to just three days a week. Within hours, its sister publications The Birmingham News, The Press-Register of Mobile and The Huntsville Times followed suit. Four days later, Postmedia announced that three of its papers, The Calgary Herald, The Edmonton Journal and The Ottawa Citizen would all eliminate their Sunday editions. . . . Newspaper executives argue that printing and delivering newspapers only on certain days will sharply cut costs while at least preserving some of the paper advertising, which remains far more lucrative than digital ads.”
The internet favors decentralization.  Decentralization disfavors central control over the “mainstream” media.  In our decentralized, internet age, there’s no longer one “party line,” or even two—there are hundreds or even thousands of competing ideas, interests and perspectives.  Without a common system of values mandated and controlled by a central authority, people can no longer be easily controlled, inhibited or motivated by the “powers that be”.  As the internet age advances, centralized government powers should diminish.

As the people increasingly reject mainstream newspapers and TV news and instead choose to get their news on the “blogosphere,” mainstream news outlets are being forced to cut back or even close their doors.  Result?  The “system” is losing its ability to control the information and ideas that reach the public. 

Over the past 60 years, mainstream media have been primarily supported by advertising revenue from business entities engaged in commerce.  Therefore, the mainstream media (unwilling to bite the hand that feeds it) have tended to be extremely “friendly” to commerce and big business.  As a result, the fundamental values in support of commerce and major corporations have been disproportionately espoused by mainstream media.

However, the internet is nowhere near as effective as an advertising media as mainstream newspapers and TV have been.  Result?  In this internet age, the influence of advertisers will be increasingly marginalized and the people’s values will tend to be increasingly populist and contrary to the interests of big bidness.  

Populism is another evidence of decentralization.    The forces of populism, nationalism and decentralization are almost identical.  Whenever one of those force rises (or falls) the others should follow. 

Unintended Consequences:  January 23rd:  EU foreign ministers approved new sanctions on Iran's financial and oil sectors to prevent EU countries from importing Iranian crude or dealing with Iran’s central bank.  The intent of this sanction was to compel Iran to abandon its nuclear power research.

March 15th :  “SWIFT” (the single, Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication system used by banks around the world to implement international transactions) declared that SWIFT was no longer available to Iranian banks.  Without SWIFT, Iranian banks could not readily trade with foreign countries. 

But on June 1st, Iran announced that it had designed and activated a new system for conducting international transactions that would supplant SWIFT.

Where, previously, there had been one centralized banking system for implementing international trade, there are now two

Whenever one becomes two, we have evidence of decentralization.

Recently, China (the world’s 2nd  largest economy) began trading with Japan (the world’s 3rd largest economy) based on use of Chinese yuan and Japanese yen—without the intervention of the fiat dollar

Since A.D. 1971, the fiat dollar served as the world’s only “reserve currency” Thus, the fiat dollar played a powerful and essential role in “centralizing” global financial and political power. 

However, since Saddam Hussein started selling Iraqi crude for euros in A.D. 2001, the number of nations willing to trade in terms of their own national currencies and without dollars has grown.  As these bilateral, dollar-less trade agreements proliferate, the centralizing force of the fiat dollar is diminishing while the world moves increasingly towards decentralization.

Ron Paul’s candidacy for Republican nomination for President has given the Republican establishment fits.  Paul’s candidacy and success indicates that the Republican party’s power is far from “centralized”.  Paul’s candidacy is even seen as grounds for the creation of a viable 3rd political party and thus implies that the political power is no longer confided to the Republicans and Democrats.  Again, we see evidence of the forces of decentralization.

All around us we see growing evidence that the New World Order has lost momentum and the prospects for global governance and a single global currency are fading.  The forces of decentralization seem almost irresistible. 

As nations reject the N.W.O.’s centralized power and regain their appetite for independence and national sovereignty, we can expect to see reductions in international trade, failures on the part of nations that consume to continue funding nations that produce, rising frictions between former trading partners, and the return of “out-sourced” industries and jobs to their original nations.  We can also expect decentralization to allow more violence on the domestic (civil war) and international (war) levels. 

As the world grows increasingly decentralized, it will inevitably become increasingly destabilized and subject to war. 

What form of money and/or investment seems to always grow in value during times of political, social and economic instability? 

Hint:  Got gold? 

In a “brave new” centralized world, the price of gold can be controlled and suppressed.  In a decentralized world, the free market rules and the price of gold can rise dramatically. 

The forces of decentralization are growing.  As the world decentralizes it will destabilize.  As we face more political, social and economic instability you’ll need gold, I’ll need gold, and everyone will want gold. 

The purchasing power of gold must therefore rise.

Discount Gold & Silver Trading Co. provides all forms of precious metals including gold, silver platinum and palladium whether you are buying or selling. Our inventory includes but not limited to the American Gold, Silver, Platinum Eagle and numismatic products including rare, investment and circulated coins. Silver dollars, silver bars, rounds are on hand for the silver investor. Foreign gold is also available. Call for information regarding your precious metal gold and silver IRA. 1-800-375-4188

To unsubscribe to this email, reply and put "Unsubscribe" in the subject line.

Copyright 2012 Discount Gold & Silver Trading All rights reserved

Discount Gold and Silver Trading, PO Box 507, Port Matilda, PA 16870 · 1-800-375-4188