I guess this can come as a shock if you didn't know it before. Frankly, if someone will give me what I want in exchange for rocks, then I'll use rocks as my currency. Although, paper does fold better.
dfi
dfi
- Jan 17, 2004
- 6,815
- 0
- 0
My logic is perfectly sound.
If Mill calls me a moron we must assume his calling me a moron serves a purpose.
Calling a true moron a moron serves no purpose (as I explained before it is just like calling a mentally handicapped person "retarded").
Therefore, when Mill called me a moron, we can assume that I am not one, because otherwise it would serve no purpose to do so.
Nice tautological argument, but that's the gist of it. You're a moron, and quite possibly a child molestor as well.
TuxDave
Lifer
- Oct 8, 2002
- 10,571
- 3
- 71
It is logically sound. Assuming that this premise is true.
If you were a moron, then he would not say that you were a moron.
That is equivalent to.
If he said you were a moron, then you are not a moron.
However, using this as a counter-argument sounds a little silly.
- Jan 17, 2004
- 6,815
- 0
- 0
You are getting away from the issue, and I want to bring us back to it. The issue originally had nothing to do with whether or not unbacked currency is good or bad. The issue is, did the government deliberately deceive the public by removing these words from Federal Reserve Notes: "WILL PAY TO THE BEARER ON DEMAND", while retaining the almost identical distinct likeness to the original Notes?
Furthermore, did the government deliberately commit fraud by either misrepresenting what a dollar is, or by changing its definition to something radically different? If the original notes said: WILL PAY TO THE BEARER ON DEMAND X DOLLARS, this means that the Notes themselves WERE NOT dollars. As I have said before, if the Notes themselves were dollars this phrase would be completely and utterly non-sensical. Therefore, by removing the phrase WILL PAY TO THE BEARER ON DEMAND radically changes the definition of a dollar. By removing those seven critical words the definition of a dollar has changed from a specific measurement of weight of gold or silver to a piece of paper.
You see I have no problem with the government removing the words WILL PAY TO THE BEARER ON DEMAND on newly issued paper currency in and of itself. However, if it did this in my opinion it is obligated to do a few things, namely:
1. Change the likeness of the paper currency so that it is distinctly different from the old Notes.
2. Remove any and all references to dollars.
3. Remorve any and all references to Notes.
Also, keep in mind this has nothing to do with reneging on its promise to redeem the old Notes. I believe that was unethical/fraudulent as well, but for now these are the issues I want to focus on.
Now, I am not saying that these actions of the government warrent legal action against it. Under law the government cannot be sued for fraud, it is protected from those torts relating to fraud. However, as Americans I believe that we should seriously question the morality of the government's actions in this case, and these actions must be brought to light.
- Jan 17, 2004
- 6,815
- 0
- 0
WTF? No one forced you to click this thread, no one forced you to listen to what I have to say, as disgusting as you may think my postings are. To say that you have vile and hatred for me is unwarrented, for if you dislike me, the Exit is just a click away.
TuxDave
Lifer
- Oct 8, 2002
- 10,571
- 3
- 71
I never tried to get away from the issue at hand. I just tried to get a better grasp at it, so I've been following the current trend of the thread. So if you want to argue morality, that's fine.
It is very well known that the monetary system was off the gold standard. Our currency is not backed by anything other than the trust that it has value and that is also well discussed. The result of having a backless currency is not that bad of an idea. So what is the moral dilemma here? They needed to change the standard, people as a whole are retarded and so if they told everyone that the dollar no longer exists and everyone must buy these U.S. Tokens, then the chaos would ensure. They needed an easy way to change to the fiat money system. Is that so morally bad?
What did they do wrong? People are used to using 'dollars' as money, and so they thought no harm in keeping the old name. People could still buy what they wanted without too much anxiety or confusion. I think they did a pretty good job of the situation. You're one of the few saying "The gov't TRICKED ME!!!". The rest is saying "Ok, sure, money is money. I like having my DOLLARS." Would it be better to change the system to appease the few people who are offended with the name?
- Jan 17, 2004
- 6,815
- 0
- 0
You must have a different definition of what is very well known. The fact that there are some, perhaps not a majority, but some people today who believe their tokens are still redeemable for gold and silver indicates to me that it is not very well known. Maybe well known, but not very.
I realize that our currency is not backed by anything and that its value is purely extrinsic. If they needed to change the standard they should have changed the standard in an honest manner regardless of what the results were. Possible negative effects of honest actions is no excuse for dispensing with honesty. Furthermore, I highly question the "need" to change the money system. The motivation of doing so is crystal clear to me, the feds wanted to blow the lid off of any restrictions on inflation. Obviously if people could exchange their Notes for specific weights of gold or silver then this would not be possible. Please answer this question: do you believe that it is a coincidence that not more than 10 years after going off the gold standard the U.S. entered a period of hyperinflation?
The government knew that people had completely forgotten what a dollar actually was, and they took advantage of this in a devious way. You see legal definitions are supposed to be very specific, as specific as possible, this is why there are entire dictionaries just for legal terms. What the government essentially did was it transformed the legal definition of dollar, from a specific weight and measure to the colloquial "definition". It is very interesting to note that the 1991 edition (I'm not sure about the current edition) of Black's Law Dictionary has no definition for the word dollar. Since the definition of a dollar radically changed in the early '60s, perhaps the authors were not able to figure out exactly what is a dollar is in legal terms.
Couple things I noticed while reading :
1. Dissipate stated in regards to creating gold and silver in a tokamak that creating large quantities of gold and silver would "..cost billions of dollars to make a handful of atoms..." According to your definition of dollars and money, it would, in fact, cost nothing more than a large amount of electricity and billions of tokens. The money supply would then be artificially increased by creating money where none existed before.
2. In the 1950's, a single wage earner could support a family of four. Today, a large proportion of the population has trouble with living expenses. The reason is not due to inflation. The reason for the difference is the standard of living increase over the last 50+ years. Basic necessities such as food have increased in price, but a single worker earning minimum wage should still easily afford to support the needs of a family of four. What has changed to make this difficult is the increase in living standards. We now have minimum building standards, health insurance, car insurance, homebuyer's insurance, health regulations in food, housing, schools, public areas, restaurants, etc. Workers are now expected to commute farther, longer, at their own expense. Companies are required to carry workers compensation, maintaing building codes, maintain work ethics, provide insurance for disasters, insurance for manufactured goods or provided services, etc, and these increased costs are passed on to the consumer.
In other words, the standard of living has increased tremendously over the past 50 years. The extra costs should be factored into comparisons.
3. Currency is based entirely on faith. Buyers and sellers must have faith in the currency's value in order to use it in a transaction. Anything can be used as money as long as the buyer and seller agree on its value. Greenbacks are convenient because they are widely recognized and accepted as a fixed value. When I say fixed value, I refer to the value of a $20 bill being 20 $1 bills no matter where you go. Of course, the exchange rate of greenbacks for, say, rice, varies by region. However, that same nuance exists with precious metals and has existed for centuries.
Old pennies from the 1800's can still be used in place of new pennies. It is understood that a penny is a penny no matter how old and a buyer and seller who don't care or know about old coins will use it as such. However, only a fool wouldn't recognize that collectors will exchange far more value for that 1800's penny than what they'll give for the new penny.
4. Money is really no different than any other good in an economy. Its value and denomination is determined either by common consensus or a central authority in the same manner as other goods. In some cases, there is no central authority, but there are major powers. Such is the case with the US economy.
If you get right down to it, the US government influences the economy not because the people follow its orders. The US gov't uses the Federal Reserve as a major economic power to influence the market. Ultimate authority is actually shared between the collective population, the US government, and foreign powers.
5. Fiat money is in use around the world only because it is simple. It is simple to understand and simple to control. Instead of using computers to obtain real-time exchange rates for precious metals, greenbacks provide a singular reference point for the value of a good or service. Greenbacks are difficult to counterfeit whereas computer systems are inherently insecure. Greenacks lose their value as their supply increases, but then so do precious metals. However, precious metals are currently limited to whatever exists on Earth whereas greenbacks can be manufactured using more common material. On the same vein, verifying the authenticity of precious metals is a bit more difficult than verifying greenbacks.
How can one test the above assertions? Simply destroy a large national economy, sit back, and watch. Hyperinflation completely wipes out any faith in the exchange value of little slips of paper with pretty pictures. At first, barter becomes the common method of exchange. As the local economy stabilizes, the people begin to use a common item as currency. It can be anything from pigs to corn to pretty stones. As more and more people adopt local currencies, more and more people begin to recognize other regions' currency values. Eventually, the nation adopts a single form of currency based on one or more local currencies. In some cases, the national government is able to scrape together enough power to dictate the course of economic recovery and possibly retain the old currency.
Cliff notes : Money has no inherent value. The only value in money is what is seen between the buyer and seller in a single transaction. Money only acts as a common conversion medium. It requires neither scarcity or high market value. It is usually difficult to counterfeit, as the faith in the value of the currency is inversely related to the easy in faking it. The effects of devaluation are relatively tame as long as the new values are universally recognized. The pile of greenbacks under the bed will lose purchasing power over time, but the smarter consumers will invest in a good which lasts a long time and either maintains or increases said purchasing power.
The US government is not the source of power for greenbacks. While the Federal Reserve is the birth place of every bill and coin in existence (plus or minus counterfeits), these bills and coins have no value except for what people place in them. If, for some reason, every single person decided not to accept greenbacks in exchange for goods and services, the US gov't could print as many as it wished and none would hold any value. In this respect, the Federal Reserve is no different than the old-fashioned private banks and state agencies it replaced.
1. Dissipate stated in regards to creating gold and silver in a tokamak that creating large quantities of gold and silver would "..cost billions of dollars to make a handful of atoms..." According to your definition of dollars and money, it would, in fact, cost nothing more than a large amount of electricity and billions of tokens. The money supply would then be artificially increased by creating money where none existed before.
2. In the 1950's, a single wage earner could support a family of four. Today, a large proportion of the population has trouble with living expenses. The reason is not due to inflation. The reason for the difference is the standard of living increase over the last 50+ years. Basic necessities such as food have increased in price, but a single worker earning minimum wage should still easily afford to support the needs of a family of four. What has changed to make this difficult is the increase in living standards. We now have minimum building standards, health insurance, car insurance, homebuyer's insurance, health regulations in food, housing, schools, public areas, restaurants, etc. Workers are now expected to commute farther, longer, at their own expense. Companies are required to carry workers compensation, maintaing building codes, maintain work ethics, provide insurance for disasters, insurance for manufactured goods or provided services, etc, and these increased costs are passed on to the consumer.
In other words, the standard of living has increased tremendously over the past 50 years. The extra costs should be factored into comparisons.
3. Currency is based entirely on faith. Buyers and sellers must have faith in the currency's value in order to use it in a transaction. Anything can be used as money as long as the buyer and seller agree on its value. Greenbacks are convenient because they are widely recognized and accepted as a fixed value. When I say fixed value, I refer to the value of a $20 bill being 20 $1 bills no matter where you go. Of course, the exchange rate of greenbacks for, say, rice, varies by region. However, that same nuance exists with precious metals and has existed for centuries.
Old pennies from the 1800's can still be used in place of new pennies. It is understood that a penny is a penny no matter how old and a buyer and seller who don't care or know about old coins will use it as such. However, only a fool wouldn't recognize that collectors will exchange far more value for that 1800's penny than what they'll give for the new penny.
4. Money is really no different than any other good in an economy. Its value and denomination is determined either by common consensus or a central authority in the same manner as other goods. In some cases, there is no central authority, but there are major powers. Such is the case with the US economy.
If you get right down to it, the US government influences the economy not because the people follow its orders. The US gov't uses the Federal Reserve as a major economic power to influence the market. Ultimate authority is actually shared between the collective population, the US government, and foreign powers.
5. Fiat money is in use around the world only because it is simple. It is simple to understand and simple to control. Instead of using computers to obtain real-time exchange rates for precious metals, greenbacks provide a singular reference point for the value of a good or service. Greenbacks are difficult to counterfeit whereas computer systems are inherently insecure. Greenacks lose their value as their supply increases, but then so do precious metals. However, precious metals are currently limited to whatever exists on Earth whereas greenbacks can be manufactured using more common material. On the same vein, verifying the authenticity of precious metals is a bit more difficult than verifying greenbacks.
How can one test the above assertions? Simply destroy a large national economy, sit back, and watch. Hyperinflation completely wipes out any faith in the exchange value of little slips of paper with pretty pictures. At first, barter becomes the common method of exchange. As the local economy stabilizes, the people begin to use a common item as currency. It can be anything from pigs to corn to pretty stones. As more and more people adopt local currencies, more and more people begin to recognize other regions' currency values. Eventually, the nation adopts a single form of currency based on one or more local currencies. In some cases, the national government is able to scrape together enough power to dictate the course of economic recovery and possibly retain the old currency.
Cliff notes : Money has no inherent value. The only value in money is what is seen between the buyer and seller in a single transaction. Money only acts as a common conversion medium. It requires neither scarcity or high market value. It is usually difficult to counterfeit, as the faith in the value of the currency is inversely related to the easy in faking it. The effects of devaluation are relatively tame as long as the new values are universally recognized. The pile of greenbacks under the bed will lose purchasing power over time, but the smarter consumers will invest in a good which lasts a long time and either maintains or increases said purchasing power.
The US government is not the source of power for greenbacks. While the Federal Reserve is the birth place of every bill and coin in existence (plus or minus counterfeits), these bills and coins have no value except for what people place in them. If, for some reason, every single person decided not to accept greenbacks in exchange for goods and services, the US gov't could print as many as it wished and none would hold any value. In this respect, the Federal Reserve is no different than the old-fashioned private banks and state agencies it replaced.
SO WHAT??
I bet you a good 20% of the US population could not point out Maine to you on a map. Does that mean they were deceived too??
Good god, there are many, many morons out there. Some (like you) don't even seem to know that we have been off the gold standard for a long ass time.
That's why they made The Wizard of Oz - to break the news to people like you in a way you can understand.
- Jan 17, 2004
- 6,815
- 0
- 0
That's great but you avoided the main issue which is the removal of the words: WILL PAY TO THE BEARER ON DEMAND from U.S. paper currency while retaining the words Note, dollar and the distinct likeness to the original Notes. Please, with your plethora of knowledge explain how this is not deception/fraud.
Keep in mind that if anyone else set up a gold & silver warehouse company and did this they would be thrown in prison for years.
TuxDave
Lifer
- Oct 8, 2002
- 10,571
- 3
- 71
Fraud. So the gov't fooled the people out of their money. A dollar back on the gold system could buy food, water, houses. A dollar off the gold system can buy food, water, and houses. The dollar still is as functional as it was before, and that is all that people expect the dollar to do. If the gov't did something that made the dollar unusable to pay for anything and still gave the impression that it did, then I guess you would have a case of fraud. The real arguements against what we did does not relate to fraud at all. They are looking at the real things that may hurt the population. Inflaction, depression, etc... those are the only sound arguments that I've heard. Fraud isn't one of them.
- Jan 17, 2004
- 6,815
- 0
- 0
Once again you are avoiding my above points, which is probably why you replied to this post and not my other one. When the government removed "WILL PAY TO THE BEARER ON DEMAND" it attempted to change the legal definition of Note (by the way, the legal definition of Note still has not changed) and dollar, literally overnight. As I have said before, legal definitions are supposed to have as specific of a definition as possible. In this case it (the government) attempted to retain the word Note on paper currency that was no longer a Note, and it attempted to completely change the meaning of dollar, from a specific weight and measure to the paper currency itself. To change the definition of dollar overnight from a specific one that is fit for a legal dictionary to the colloquial "definition" is a bizarre act. Any sane lawyer on the planet will tell you that colloquial "definitions" are distinctly different from legal definitions and they are NOT interchangeable on legal documents, what you may call something in everyday language has no place in a law dictionary.
See above post about Black's Law Dictionary.
TuxDave
Lifer
- Oct 8, 2002
- 10,571
- 3
- 71
Damn boy.. chill. So I missed post. Fine, I'll reply to the OTHER one instead. So we're arguing legal definitions, fine.
Why is it that I can go to Fry's and not get anything cooked? Why is it that some words can be added to the dictionary in the modern day? It seems to me that if it's not a word, it's not a word. But words are added to the dictionary all the time. Why is the pronunctiation allowed to change. Often with a silent t used to be the 'real' way to say it, now all dictionaries allow the hard 't'. As much as some poets like to protect the nature of words, it is common practice to adapt to how words are used today. Verbicide as you call it. But I bet even you use words that are not the original definition. Dollar has a new definition now. By that, is it still fraud to call our money... dollars?
I will be at my website selling tin foil deflector beanies. Cost? Five Dollars, five Federal Reserve Notes or thirty-five modern US Tokens.
What does all of this tell us? The government has deceptively tried to alter the definitions of these words in order to trick the public into believing that it is continuing to issue money, notes, and dollars into circulation. The only things it is issuing are tokens as currency (currency of the first definition). Tokens are certainly no substitute for money, the public has been deceived. I've talked to several people who still believe that FRTs are redeemable for gold and silver, including a bank teller!
Get the book and spread the word![/quote]
So you're saying that the thing I call a dollar in my wallet is really a "token"? WHO IN THE F*CK CARES?! This is the most ignorant thing I've ever heard. They're not lying to us. Obviously, it's American currency in my wallet, and as long as I can exchange it for goods and services, all of this B.S. is unimportant.
This is the dumbest book I've ever heard of and easily in the top ten of all-time worst posts. We're all dumber for having read that. You are awarded no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Oh, and I give this (0/10)
Get the book and spread the word![/quote]
So you're saying that the thing I call a dollar in my wallet is really a "token"? WHO IN THE F*CK CARES?! This is the most ignorant thing I've ever heard. They're not lying to us. Obviously, it's American currency in my wallet, and as long as I can exchange it for goods and services, all of this B.S. is unimportant.
This is the dumbest book I've ever heard of and easily in the top ten of all-time worst posts. We're all dumber for having read that. You are awarded no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Oh, and I give this (0/10)
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter