What's in YOUR wallet? (hint: it is not money) UPDATE: INTERVIEW WITH AUTHOR

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: z0mb13

Originally posted by: XZeroII
I've done the econ thing for a few semesters and understand what you are saying. But tell me this, if our gov't is doing such a good job, then why is pretty much everyone in this country (save a few) getting poorer every day? Read my example about the 50's compared to now. Why is this happening if our money is still just as valuable now as it was before?

we would be in the same state anyways if we are still using the gold standard. The problem not lies in the currency, but on lots of different factors (population growth, etc). You can still support a whole family on a single income if you move out of the major populated areas.

I'm talking about the average person. Less and less people are able to make ends meet, regardless of where they live. Some areas are better, others worse, but on average, things are getting worse (slowly).

I am not necessarily arguing for the gold standard to be reinstated, but rather pointing out the problems with our current system. I believe the gold standard would be a better way to go, but not a perfect solution because of fractional banking. However, my little story above demonstrates how things work and why our current system is bad. Actually, I ask you to figure out the problem yourself when I ask

This is the foundation of our current money system. Tell me what the problem with this is when you get rid of pig feathers

. I would appreciate your insight into this.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
I'm sorry I can't be more specific or clear, but it seems to me that our current system is a losing one. People are having a harder and harder time making ends meet because the value of their money just keeps going down and down. It just happens so slow that people don't see it.

Yeah. I think I understand.

Doesen't it kinda have something to do with the gap between wealthy.. and not? That gap is pretty large nowadays. But maybe it always has been? Dunno.

Like.. Has the lowest income bracket increased as much in the last, say.. 50 years.. as the mid, and high income brackets?

I mean, some people would disagree with your statement - because they're well off.

Technically, isn't it supposed to balance out? ie: things cost more, but you also make more.. at its most basic level? Is that where it's failing?

 

[z0mb13]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: z0mb13

Originally posted by: XZeroII
I've done the econ thing for a few semesters and understand what you are saying. But tell me this, if our gov't is doing such a good job, then why is pretty much everyone in this country (save a few) getting poorer every day? Read my example about the 50's compared to now. Why is this happening if our money is still just as valuable now as it was before?

we would be in the same state anyways if we are still using the gold standard. The problem not lies in the currency, but on lots of different factors (population growth, etc). You can still support a whole family on a single income if you move out of the major populated areas.

I'm talking about the average person. Less and less people are able to make ends meet, regardless of where they live. Some areas are better, others worse, but on average, things are getting worse (slowly).

I am not necessarily arguing for the gold standard to be reinstated, but rather pointing out the problems with our current system. I believe the gold standard would be a better way to go, but not a perfect solution because of fractional banking. However, my little story above demonstrates how things work and why our current system is bad. Actually, I ask you to figure out the problem yourself when I ask

This is the foundation of our current money system. Tell me what the problem with this is when you get rid of pig feathers

. I would appreciate your insight into this.

simple, the pig feathers is replaced with TRUST.

You are in no ways FORCED to use the greenback. It is all based on trust.

edit: the cause of the average person being less and less able to make ends meet is influenced by A LOT of factors out of the monetary system.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Everyone thinks this is about going back to the gold standard, it is not. Free tri-metalism is what is needed.

Text

What would be the effect of aritfically increasing the demand for copper, gold and silver on the economy when those metals are extremily important for every day uses. Isn't it a waste of copper to use it as money when it could be better used a wires or pipes?

Copper, silver and gold do not have fixed supplies. There are many gold mines that are mothballed because the price of gold is not high enough for them to make a profit. Once gold started to be used as currency its demand would go up and the mines would have more incentive to operate and expand the money supply. Once the supply went up, the price would stabilize and gold could still be used in industry.

Yeah but the price would increase. Why not use something complete worth less for money and ensure that it is articfially scares. Like look at copper it is every where, in cars, fans, power lines etc. An increases in price of copper would increase the price of every other item you purchase which will cause... supply side inflation which is the worses type of inflation.

There are copper mines also, more copper mines would open up as well. When copper was used in the minting of pennies by the U.S. mint I don't recall a copper shortage, except during World War II.

When the demand for something increases its price may increase temporarily, but then after the price increase occurs the supply increases as well, then the price goes back down.

Under your theory, we still have the same copper supply as we have had for hundreds of years, under this theory copper would be extremely expensive indeed. But this is not the case, as the demand for copper increased more mines opened up. This is no different than what would happen if free tri-metalism was adopted and people started using copper coins. There would be no supply-side inflation or any inflation for the long term, the supply would match the demand which would create an equilibrium price.

Simple econmics states that when demand increase price will increase. A increase in the supply will not offset the increase in the price. You can claim that the effect would be small. Lets say I'm going to buy a pund of bread at 65 cents I would either need about a half pound of gold or .001 of an ounce of silver. Niether sounds like a very praticle way to buy bread. Or for doing laundry I would need about 2 pounds of copper I guess the 10 quarters I need to find isn't that bad at all.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: beer

Originally posted by: XZeroII
I've done the econ thing for a few semesters and understand what you are saying. But tell me this, if our gov't is doing such a good job, then why is pretty much everyone in this country (save a few) getting poorer every day? Read my example about the 50's compared to now. Why is this happening if our money is still just as valuable now as it was before?

Do you really think people are getting poorer??? That is crazy.

Look in the 50s. Starvation was still a big problem in this country. Heath care systems didn't exist because major surgeries didn't get exist. What health care did exist was cash and carry type operations. People were lucky to own one car, most families now own at least two. Think of all the electronics you have now, in the 50s you had a radio and a black and white TV. Things like health insurnace, car insurance have spiraled up in cost, but things like food, like cars, like gas, really have become incredibly cheapear.

I don't really know how you can argue people had more money in the 50s, excluding inflation. I really think you need to talk to someone who grew up then....

Really? The people I have talked to refer to that time as the "good old days". Sure, they had less in terms of technology and such, but they enjoyed life more because they didn't have to work so hard to make ends meet. Think about how much more debt people have now compared to then (adjusting for inflation and such, of course). Sure, they have 2 cars now, but usually at least one is not paid for yet. Houses are incredibly more expensive now than they used to be and that is one that really counts because it is one item that traps people into a lifetime of debt very easily. So I would have to argue that things are not better now than they used to be. We just have more luxuries now, and more debt.

I'm not an expert by any means and could be wrong here. This is what I have learned from, as you said to do, talking to people who lived back then.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: z0mb13

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: z0mb13

Originally posted by: XZeroII
I've done the econ thing for a few semesters and understand what you are saying. But tell me this, if our gov't is doing such a good job, then why is pretty much everyone in this country (save a few) getting poorer every day? Read my example about the 50's compared to now. Why is this happening if our money is still just as valuable now as it was before?

we would be in the same state anyways if we are still using the gold standard. The problem not lies in the currency, but on lots of different factors (population growth, etc). You can still support a whole family on a single income if you move out of the major populated areas.

I'm talking about the average person. Less and less people are able to make ends meet, regardless of where they live. Some areas are better, others worse, but on average, things are getting worse (slowly).

I am not necessarily arguing for the gold standard to be reinstated, but rather pointing out the problems with our current system. I believe the gold standard would be a better way to go, but not a perfect solution because of fractional banking. However, my little story above demonstrates how things work and why our current system is bad. Actually, I ask you to figure out the problem yourself when I ask

This is the foundation of our current money system. Tell me what the problem with this is when you get rid of pig feathers

. I would appreciate your insight into this.

simple, the pig feathers is replaced with TRUST.

You are in no ways FORCED to use the greenback. It is all based on trust.

edit: the cause of the average person being less and less able to make ends meet is influenced by A LOT of factors out of the monetary system.

I'm sorry if you have explained this before, but could you explain this, 'trust'. I know what a trust is and such, but could you explain it to me in a very simple way so that I can grasp the concept you are trying to say. I don't see how replacing pig feathers with trust could help anything.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Really? The people I have talked to refer to that time as the "good old days". Sure, they had less in terms of technology and such, but they enjoyed life more because they didn't have to work so hard to make ends meet. Think about how much more debt people have now compared to then (adjusting for inflation and such, of course). Sure, they have 2 cars now, but usually at least one is not paid for yet. Houses are incredibly more expensive now than they used to be and that is one that really counts because it is one item that traps people into a lifetime of debt very easily. So I would have to argue that things are not better now than they used to be. We just have more luxuries now, and more debt.

I'm not an expert by any means and could be wrong here. This is what I have learned from, as you said to do, talking to people who lived back then.

Yes, I completely understand what you're saying, and I pretty much agree with you if I don't think about it more, but.. when my dad talks about how he used to be able to get a whole McDonalds meal for a buck, or a brand new car for 2,000$.. I kindly point out that if you made 10k a year(or whatever, dont really know the figures), you were damn well off.. while today, thats more like 50k.. or whatever.

You're looking at it from the perspective of a poor person(which is where I look at it from too, unfortunately), but I believe an econ course would clear it up for both of us.. I don't know the specifics, but it basically boils down to that balance I spoke of earlier; things cost more, but you also make more..

edit: I should add that, the reason he bitches about how things used to be so cheap compared to now is that we have always been on the poor side of things, we've never had money; the ammount of money he and we have had doesen't seem like its increasing, we've always just been able to get by.. so thats what leads to the mentality of "Well damn, you used to be able to buy a house for 8 grand!".. if you grew up in that period, ya know.. heh.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: XZeroII
I'm sorry I can't be more specific or clear, but it seems to me that our current system is a losing one. People are having a harder and harder time making ends meet because the value of their money just keeps going down and down. It just happens so slow that people don't see it.

Yeah. I think I understand.

Doesen't it kinda have something to do with the gap between wealthy.. and not? That gap is pretty large nowadays. But maybe it always has been? Dunno.

Like.. Has the lowest income bracket increased as much in the last, say.. 50 years.. as the mid, and high income brackets?

I mean, some people would disagree with your statement - because they're well off.

Technically, isn't it supposed to balance out? ie: things cost more, but you also make more.. at its most basic level? Is that where it's failing?

Please don't quote me on this because I have no actual proof or anything, but from what I hear/read/see/etc... things cost more, but the income is not rising fast enough to keep up. The main items, I think, are the big ticket items. Houses, cars, etc... People can no longer afford any of these things, but they are neccessary and so people have to borrow. I don't think I need to explain how much borrowing costs you.

I'm kind of getting in over my head by saying some of this stuff. I'm a programmer, not an Economist! But I have an interest in economics, so here's my 2c, anyway.

 

[CTho9305]

errr, didnt mean to post

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Really? The people I have talked to refer to that time as the "good old days". Sure, they had less in terms of technology and such, but they enjoyed life more because they didn't have to work so hard to make ends meet. Think about how much more debt people have now compared to then (adjusting for inflation and such, of course). Sure, they have 2 cars now, but usually at least one is not paid for yet. Houses are incredibly more expensive now than they used to be and that is one that really counts because it is one item that traps people into a lifetime of debt very easily. So I would have to argue that things are not better now than they used to be. We just have more luxuries now, and more debt.

I'm not an expert by any means and could be wrong here. This is what I have learned from, as you said to do, talking to people who lived back then.

Yes, I completely understand what you're saying, and I pretty much agree with you if I don't think about it more, but.. when my dad talks about how he used to be able to get a whole McDonalds meal for a buck, or a brand new car for 2,000$.. I kindly point out that if you made 10k a year(or whatever, dont really know the figures), you were damn well off.. while today, thats more like 50k.. or whatever.

You're looking at it from the perspective of a poor person(which is where I look at it from too, unfortunately), but I believe an econ course would clear it up for both of us.. I don't know the specifics, but it basically boils down to that balance I spoke of earlier; things cost more, but you also make more..

I got you, and I know that you just made those number up, but take a look at your numbers for a moment. If your father's income went from 10k to 50k, that is a 5x increase. I don't know of many new cars that you can buy for only 10k (2k x 5). Seems to me that the car's price jumped a bit more than income.

 

[z0mb13]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: z0mb13

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: z0mb13

Originally posted by: XZeroII
I've done the econ thing for a few semesters and understand what you are saying. But tell me this, if our gov't is doing such a good job, then why is pretty much everyone in this country (save a few) getting poorer every day? Read my example about the 50's compared to now. Why is this happening if our money is still just as valuable now as it was before?

we would be in the same state anyways if we are still using the gold standard. The problem not lies in the currency, but on lots of different factors (population growth, etc). You can still support a whole family on a single income if you move out of the major populated areas.

I'm talking about the average person. Less and less people are able to make ends meet, regardless of where they live. Some areas are better, others worse, but on average, things are getting worse (slowly).

I am not necessarily arguing for the gold standard to be reinstated, but rather pointing out the problems with our current system. I believe the gold standard would be a better way to go, but not a perfect solution because of fractional banking. However, my little story above demonstrates how things work and why our current system is bad. Actually, I ask you to figure out the problem yourself when I ask

This is the foundation of our current money system. Tell me what the problem with this is when you get rid of pig feathers

. I would appreciate your insight into this.

simple, the pig feathers is replaced with TRUST.

You are in no ways FORCED to use the greenback. It is all based on trust.

edit: the cause of the average person being less and less able to make ends meet is influenced by A LOT of factors out of the monetary system.

I'm sorry if you have explained this before, but could you explain this, 'trust'. I know what a trust is and such, but could you explain it to me in a very simple way so that I can grasp the concept you are trying to say. I don't see how replacing pig feathers with trust could help anything.

wow.. hmm how do I explain trust..
ok trust is like good will. lets say that you and I are good friends. I lend you money, and I TRUST you to return it to me in the future. Is it possible that you will not return the money? yes it is, but why did I lend the money to you in the first place? Its simply because I TRUST you. If I dont trust you, I will not lend you the money.

The case is similar to the greenback. All of the users of the dollar (both americans and also international entities) trust that the dollar will be good for trading, and also good for keeping value. If these people does not trust the dollar, they will simply not use it.

An example where the general public lose trust to a currency is the argentinian currency. Even argentina people didnt have trust in the currecny, and as a result, the argentinian peso (is it peso?) devalued greatly. well the starting cause is because of hyperinflation since the argentinian gov is printing money like a mofo

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

I got you, and I know that you just made those number up, but take a look at your numbers for a moment. If your father's income went from 10k to 50k, that is a 5x increase. I don't know of many new cars that you can buy for only 10k (2k x 5). Seems to me that the car's price jumped a bit more than income.

Hmm, yes.. interesting point. It would be interesting to know exactly how all those numbers pan out. It is a pretty complicated thing.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: XZeroII
I'm sorry I can't be more specific or clear, but it seems to me that our current system is a losing one. People are having a harder and harder time making ends meet because the value of their money just keeps going down and down. It just happens so slow that people don't see it.

Yeah. I think I understand.

Doesen't it kinda have something to do with the gap between wealthy.. and not? That gap is pretty large nowadays. But maybe it always has been? Dunno.

Like.. Has the lowest income bracket increased as much in the last, say.. 50 years.. as the mid, and high income brackets?

I mean, some people would disagree with your statement - because they're well off.

Technically, isn't it supposed to balance out? ie: things cost more, but you also make more.. at its most basic level? Is that where it's failing?

Please don't quote me on this because I have no actual proof or anything, but from what I hear/read/see/etc... things cost more, but the income is not rising fast enough to keep up. The main items, I think, are the big ticket items. Houses, cars, etc... People can no longer afford any of these things, but they are neccessary and so people have to borrow. I don't think I need to explain how much borrowing costs you.

I'm kind of getting in over my head by saying some of this stuff. I'm a programmer, not an Economist! But I have an interest in economics, so here's my 2c, anyway.

Part of the increase in price is due to the increase in population. With more people their is less land per person so location can be a major factor in the cost of a house. Another factor increasing price is people want a better and bigger house. There are also safety and efficent/eviromental improvements like 50 years ago windows where single pan glass now they have two panes of glass with an integerated insolation. Now you house has to stand up to a hurrician, have spricklers air condition a microwave etc.

 

[shazbot]

heres a simple question, why do you value and trust "gold"? if you can answer that, then you've answered the question on trust.

 

[CTho9305]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Note is more complicated but this is important:

At law, a pay-back agreement is called a Note only when it has four essential parts or elements. If a written instrument does not have all four of these elements, it is not a Note. What, then, are the four elements needed in a written instrument for it to be a Note at law?

The first element needed is the identity of the document's maker, or who originated it. In the case of your Note to the bank, you would be the maker.

The second element needed is the name of the party which is to receive payment.

The third element needed is the due-date, a specific date when each periodic payment is due and payable, or the date the Note is to be paid by a single payment (as in a ninety-day Note).

The fourth and last element needed is the Dollar-amount of the loan or pay-back.

This definition clearly shows that the green paper in your wallet is not a Note, because it lacks the second, third and fourth elements that is required for it to be a Note.

So what exactly is that green paper in your wallet? It is a Federal Reserve Token.

1. I know who printed this $20
2. Are you insane? If I want to buy a video card from Newegg, I have to use a Note that says "To Newegg", but I can't use that same note to buy food at the grocery store, because it doesn't say <grocery store> in the "To" field.
3. Maybe in a contract. I don't care about due dates when I'm putting 65 cents into a vending machine - I want it now. Same thing at a restaurant. Here's a token now, give me food now.
4. My this green token made of paper says 20, a unit that everybody understands.

Originally posted by: Dissipate
I never said money has no worth. Money is gold and silver coin, which has intrinsic value.

Uh, sorry, no they don't. I don't really want gold or silver - they have no intrinsic value to me (beyond the use as good electrical conductors, a purpose for which they're only slightly more valueable than copper).

I'm sorry to say but electronic forms of Federal Reserve Tokens are the only things that I can send you through Pay Pal, not money.

I'll happily take your tokens.

If you meant to say that I believe Federal Reserve Tokens have no worth, you are mistaken. I agree that they have extrinsic value, just as a token at an arcade has. However, tokens are NO substitute for money because tokens can be manipulated by whoever controls the token making machine.

How are gold/silver different from diamonds? Did you know diamond prices are controlled by the whim of DeBeers?

The idea that tokens should be used as money is kind of ridiculous if you think about it, but that is what millions of people do everyday.

Not really. Tokens are very convenient. Hell, I'd hate to see what you have to say about credit cards - I bet you think VISA is getting ripped off.

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Everyone thinks this is about going back to the gold standard, it is not. Free tri-metalism is what is needed.

Text

Uh, so instead of the gold standard, we have gold, copper, and silver. How is that better? They still have no worth. And they're heavier than bills.

The only need for state intervention would be to adopt the trimetalism standard on a national basis, and to decree that coins that fall below the face value weight by more than 1% are illegal to tender at face value. This would create an incentive for the banks to buy worn coins at a discount and turn them in for new ones with a mint.

So for every $100 I have, I can make 100 legal coins, plus one extra? Sweet, free money! :roll: You realize they're practically proposing going back to the barter system?

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
2) Go take an Econ class and pull your head out of your ass
3) Stop posting

Thank you

- M4H

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: z0mb13

Originally posted by: XZeroII
I'm sorry if you have explained this before, but could you explain this, 'trust'. I know what a trust is and such, but could you explain it to me in a very simple way so that I can grasp the concept you are trying to say. I don't see how replacing pig feathers with trust could help anything.

wow.. hmm how do I explain trust..
ok trust is like good will. lets say that you and I are good friends. I lend you money, and I TRUST you to return it to me in the future. Is it possible that you will not return the money? yes it is, but why did I lend the money to you in the first place? Its simply because I TRUST you. If I dont trust you, I will not lend you the money.

The case is similar to the greenback. All of the users of the dollar (both americans and also international entities) trust that the dollar will be good for trading, and also good for keeping value. If these people does not trust the dollar, they will simply not use it.

An example where the general public lose trust to a currency is the argentinian currency. Even argentina people didnt have trust in the currecny, and as a result, the argentinian peso (is it peso?) devalued greatly. well the starting cause is because of hyperinflation since the argentinian gov is printing money like a mofo

Alright. But how is that just as good as, or better than pig feathers? IMO, that is significantly worse. We just trust that our money is has value and that our gov't is being responsible. We have no way of actually verifying that this true. With that system, the value of our money is 100% arbitrary and 100% controlled by our gov't (actually the federal reserve). If they decide that our money is worth too much, they will start printing more. If it's not worth enough, they print less. But who decides this? Are they elected(rhetorical)? What reason do we actually have to trust that they are making these decisions with our best interests in mind? If these are rich people making these decisions, woudn't it make sense that they would always keep the little people down, like history has shown happens?

Again, please don't think that I am arguing for a gold standard.

Summary of my questions that I would like answered (the rest were pretty much rhetorical):
How is that just as good as, or better than pig feathers?
What reason do we actually have to trust that they are making these decisions with our best interests in mind?

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: shazbot
heres a simple question, why do you value and trust "gold"? if you can answer that, then you've answered the question on trust.

Duh, it's shiny.



- M4H

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: shazbot
heres a simple question, why do you value and trust "gold"? if you can answer that, then you've answered the question on trust.

I can tell you why I value and trust it more than nothing. It is rare, it has substance, it can't be counterfit, it is more difficult to lie about.

 

[z0mb13]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: z0mb13

Originally posted by: XZeroII
I'm sorry if you have explained this before, but could you explain this, 'trust'. I know what a trust is and such, but could you explain it to me in a very simple way so that I can grasp the concept you are trying to say. I don't see how replacing pig feathers with trust could help anything.

wow.. hmm how do I explain trust..
ok trust is like good will. lets say that you and I are good friends. I lend you money, and I TRUST you to return it to me in the future. Is it possible that you will not return the money? yes it is, but why did I lend the money to you in the first place? Its simply because I TRUST you. If I dont trust you, I will not lend you the money.

The case is similar to the greenback. All of the users of the dollar (both americans and also international entities) trust that the dollar will be good for trading, and also good for keeping value. If these people does not trust the dollar, they will simply not use it.

An example where the general public lose trust to a currency is the argentinian currency. Even argentina people didnt have trust in the currecny, and as a result, the argentinian peso (is it peso?) devalued greatly. well the starting cause is because of hyperinflation since the argentinian gov is printing money like a mofo

Alright. But how is that just as good as, or better than pig feathers? IMO, that is significantly worse. We just trust that our money is has value and that our gov't is being responsible. We have no way of actually verifying that this true. With that system, the value of our money is 100% arbitrary and 100% controlled by our gov't (actually the federal reserve). If they decide that our money is worth too much, they will start printing more. If it's not worth enough, they print less. But who decides this? Are they elected(rhetorical)? What reason do we actually have to trust that they are making these decisions with our best interests in mind? If these are rich people making these decisions, woudn't it make sense that they would always keep the little people down, like history has shown happens?

Again, please don't think that I am arguing for a gold standard.

Summary of my questions that I would like answered (the rest were pretty much rhetorical):
How is that just as good as, or better than pig feathers?
What reason do we actually have to trust that they are making these decisions with our best interests in mind?

its better and worse in some ways.

Why did they put so much trust into pig feathers in the first place?

not using pig feathers is advantegous in some ways: the overhead cost of transferring, buying, selling pig feathers (not including storing em). Also increasing or decreasing money supply cannot be done instantly

disadvantage: its all now based on trust. If this trust is gone, the currency is kaput.

 

[sonambulo]

you know what this thread reminds me of? legalizing sex workers.

it'd work great until some b!tch does anal for $70 bucks and the whole market goes down the drain.

 

[Michael]

XZeroII - The problem with the point you're making is that there is backing for US currency. It isn't even complicated economics and monetary theory to discuss and understand what the backing is. Essentially, it is backed by the government which is a representative of the people.

This backing is so strong that people in other countries all over the world also accept it.

If you can't grasp and understand this, then it is very difficult to have any further discussion on it.

I equate this type of discussion as being the same as discussing the obligation to pay income taxes with the crackpots who are convinved that income taxes are illegal.

Michael

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: CTho9305

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Note is more complicated but this is important:

At law, a pay-back agreement is called a Note only when it has four essential parts or elements. If a written instrument does not have all four of these elements, it is not a Note. What, then, are the four elements needed in a written instrument for it to be a Note at law?

The first element needed is the identity of the document's maker, or who originated it. In the case of your Note to the bank, you would be the maker.

The second element needed is the name of the party which is to receive payment.

The third element needed is the due-date, a specific date when each periodic payment is due and payable, or the date the Note is to be paid by a single payment (as in a ninety-day Note).

The fourth and last element needed is the Dollar-amount of the loan or pay-back.

This definition clearly shows that the green paper in your wallet is not a Note, because it lacks the second, third and fourth elements that is required for it to be a Note.

So what exactly is that green paper in your wallet? It is a Federal Reserve Token.

1. I know who printed this $20
2. Are you insane? If I want to buy a video card from Newegg, I have to use a Note that says "To Newegg", but I can't use that same note to buy food at the grocery store, because it doesn't say <grocery store> in the "To" field.
3. Maybe in a contract. I don't care about due dates when I'm putting 65 cents into a vending machine - I want it now. Same thing at a restaurant. Here's a token now, give me food now.
4. My this green token made of paper says 20, a unit that everybody understands.

Ok, so you realize it is not a Note, but a token. That's a start.

Originally posted by: Dissipate
I never said money has no worth. Money is gold and silver coin, which has intrinsic value.

Uh, sorry, no they don't. I don't really want gold or silver - they have no intrinsic value to me (beyond the use as good electrical conductors, a purpose for which they're only slightly more valueable than copper).

in·trin·sic Listen: [ n-trnzk, -sk ]
adj.


Of or relating to the essential nature of a thing; inherent.

So, intrinsic value would be value of or relating to the essential nature of a thing; inherent. This intrinsic value is not relative to any single entity. Just because something does not have intrinsic value to you, does not mean that it has no intrinsic value at all. However, it just so happens that gold has intrinsic value on a wide scale.

http://www.goldinstitute.org/uses/

I'm sorry to say but electronic forms of Federal Reserve Tokens are the only things that I can send you through Pay Pal, not money.

I'll happily take your tokens.

If you meant to say that I believe Federal Reserve Tokens have no worth, you are mistaken. I agree that they have extrinsic value, just as a token at an arcade has. However, tokens are NO substitute for money because tokens can be manipulated by whoever controls the token making machine.

How are gold/silver different from diamonds? Did you know diamond prices are controlled by the whim of DeBeers?

How are gold/silver different from diamonds? Bwahaha, you really had to ask that question? That's like asking how wheat is different than corn. They are two different commodities with two distinctly different markets. Just because DeBeers has a diamond cartel does not mean there is a counterpart for gold or silver. In fact when the Hunt Brothers tried to corner the market for silver their plan failed miserably and they lost some odd billions. I realize that the price of gold could be manipulated currently, but if it were used as a currency on a large scale no central bank would be able to control its value, there would simply be too much of it going around.

The idea that tokens should be used as money is kind of ridiculous if you think about it, but that is what millions of people do everyday.

Not really. Tokens are very convenient. Hell, I'd hate to see what you have to say about credit cards - I bet you think VISA is getting ripped off.

I don't really understand what you mean about VISA. Tokens are convenient yes, they are also conveniently manipulated and duplicated to the advantage of the owner of the token machine.

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Everyone thinks this is about going back to the gold standard, it is not. Free tri-metalism is what is needed.

Text

Uh, so instead of the gold standard, we have gold, copper, and silver. How is that better? They still have no worth. And they're heavier than bills.

http://www.ga.gov.au/education/minerals/copuse.html http://www.ga.gov.au/education/minerals/silveruse.html
http://www.mises.org/money/2s12.asp

The only need for state intervention would be to adopt the trimetalism standard on a national basis, and to decree that coins that fall below the face value weight by more than 1% are illegal to tender at face value. This would create an incentive for the banks to buy worn coins at a discount and turn them in for new ones with a mint.

So for every $100 I have, I can make 100 legal coins, plus one extra? Sweet, free money! :roll: You realize they're practically proposing going back to the barter system?

Huh?? I think you are confused. Re-read what the article says.

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
2) Go take an Econ class and pull your head out of your ass
3) Stop posting

Thank you

- M4H

If you take solace in putting others down, so be it, but it is not at my expense for your put downs have absolutely no effect on me. I have argued with some of the nastiest people around, and their insults bounce off me like rubber bullets.

 

[CTho9305]

>yer money, presumably US $ is backed by what ?
Daisy Cutters... silly!

-HorrorIsland on slashdot

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: z0mb13

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: z0mb13

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: z0mb13

Originally posted by: XZeroII
I've done the econ thing for a few semesters and understand what you are saying. But tell me this, if our gov't is doing such a good job, then why is pretty much everyone in this country (save a few) getting poorer every day? Read my example about the 50's compared to now. Why is this happening if our money is still just as valuable now as it was before?

we would be in the same state anyways if we are still using the gold standard. The problem not lies in the currency, but on lots of different factors (population growth, etc). You can still support a whole family on a single income if you move out of the major populated areas.

I'm talking about the average person. Less and less people are able to make ends meet, regardless of where they live. Some areas are better, others worse, but on average, things are getting worse (slowly).

I am not necessarily arguing for the gold standard to be reinstated, but rather pointing out the problems with our current system. I believe the gold standard would be a better way to go, but not a perfect solution because of fractional banking. However, my little story above demonstrates how things work and why our current system is bad. Actually, I ask you to figure out the problem yourself when I ask

This is the foundation of our current money system. Tell me what the problem with this is when you get rid of pig feathers

. I would appreciate your insight into this.

simple, the pig feathers is replaced with TRUST.

You are in no ways FORCED to use the greenback. It is all based on trust.

edit: the cause of the average person being less and less able to make ends meet is influenced by A LOT of factors out of the monetary system.

I'm sorry if you have explained this before, but could you explain this, 'trust'. I know what a trust is and such, but could you explain it to me in a very simple way so that I can grasp the concept you are trying to say. I don't see how replacing pig feathers with trust could help anything.

wow.. hmm how do I explain trust..
ok trust is like good will. lets say that you and I are good friends. I lend you money, and I TRUST you to return it to me in the future. Is it possible that you will not return the money? yes it is, but why did I lend the money to you in the first place? Its simply because I TRUST you. If I dont trust you, I will not lend you the money.

The case is similar to the greenback. All of the users of the dollar (both americans and also international entities) trust that the dollar will be good for trading, and also good for keeping value. If these people does not trust the dollar, they will simply not use it.

An example where the general public lose trust to a currency is the argentinian currency. Even argentina people didnt have trust in the currecny, and as a result, the argentinian peso (is it peso?) devalued greatly. well the starting cause is because of hyperinflation since the argentinian gov is printing money like a mofo

You keep talking about trust but you keep ignoring what that trust was ORINGIALLY based upon. That trust was founded on gold and silver being redeemable on demand at a bank. Why is it that the trust was originally based on that idea and then was suddenly changed? If we are using a system of trust now why couldn't/didn't the government simply start off with the system of trust that we are currently using?

The answer is they couldn't! The government had to initially start off with redeemability of gold and silver, then once those gold and silver Notes/certificates were widely accepted and recognized the government simply removed these words: "Will Pay to the Bearer on Demand". Seven little words were removed and only a handful of Americans even noticed. When the ones who noticed piped up about it they were re-assured that this was for their own good and the government had their best interest at heart.

Not even ten years after these seven words were removed and the promise to redeem was renigged, the U.S. entered a period of hyperinflation. Is this a coincidence? You would have to be a jackass to not think so.

 

[OS]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: shazbot
heres a simple question, why do you value and trust "gold"? if you can answer that, then you've answered the question on trust.

I can tell you why I value and trust it more than nothing. It is rare, it has substance, it can't be counterfit, it is more difficult to lie about.

Gold does have fixed scarcity, but lets say the apocalypse comes (which is more or less what it would take to destroy the US gov), how exactly will having gold, or any other non basic necessity, be useful to you?

If you go to ANY other kind of nonbarter system, you have the same problem where the "money" doesn't have any worth outside the context of the society.

Society as we know it is based on the respect of property ownership, which requires a strong government, which is what our money is based on, faith in the strength of our government. In a complete anarchy, it would be a free for all, not even gold would have consistent value.