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

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: dfi

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: dfi

Originally posted by: Sahakiel

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Sahakiel

Originally posted by: Dissipate
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.

Nice, but you ignored your own slip-up. It's only a technicality and the foundation of your argument, so I'll ignore it from now on.

The replacement is not deception/fraud. Money or currency have no inherent value beyond the material in which they are made. Any value which allows them to be exchanged for goods such as precious metals are inferred by the parties involved in the transaction.
The removal of "will pay to bearer on demand" simply recognizes the fact that the US government no longer recognizes the value of the "dollar" when exchanging for gold residing in US gov't reserve vaults. However, the US government still recognizes the value of the "dollar" in other transactions. That value may be immaterial but it still exists nonetheless, much as text still exists within a computer in the form of seemingly random patterns of voltages. There has been no fraud or deception, only a restriction. The dollar retains the same characteristics as before except for the ability to exchange for precious metals in the Federal Reserve vaults.

It may still retain the same characteristics in its general use, but its legal characteristics have changed. You cannot issue legal documents that are Notes, then suddenly remove the elements of those legal documents that make them Notes and continue to call them Notes. If I did this with my gold warehouse and no one noticed would my actions still be any less fraudulent? What something is used for "in general" has absolutely no bearing here. That is just like saying people used my Notes as toilet paper "in general" before I removed the elements necessary to be Notes and they used them "in general" as toilet paper after I removed the elements necessary for them to be Notes. Just beacuse people decided to use them as toilet paper and not redeem them for money does not mean that I have not committed fraud.

I think you missed my point. The legal characteristics have not changed at all. The only thing that changed is whether or not the US government is willing to exchange a bill for a precious metal that resides in the government's vaults. It is no more different than a grocery store that refuses to accept traveler's cheques or certain currencies. It is no different than a restaurant that refuses to accept bills with numbers larger than 20.
Also, you should probably note that greenbacks have changed over the years and are now distinctly different than the original notes.

Actually I think what Dissipate is trying to say it this:

We use to have money backed by gold. And you could exchange your US paper currency with the US government for gold. But once we were off the gold standard and the US paper currency was no longer a note, you could no longer exchange your US paper currency with the US gov for gold. Thus, he feels that the US gov has tricked us, taken our gold, and left us with paper.

I'm sure someone has already stated that the only reason gold is valuable is because others assign value to it. Similarly, people also assign value to US paper currency. "It doesn't matter what people use paper for, even if it has value! What about the gold that was just fraudulently taken from us!?", yells Dissipate.

Going back to his gold warehouse example. True, it is as though the US gov is a gold warehouse that previously handed out notes, and then no longer honored those notes, and thus you can't get your gold back from the US government. However, this gold warehouse also said "even though we won't give you gold from our warehouse for the notes we previously issued, we've made sure that every gold warehouse in the world will give you gold for the notes we previously issued." So, even though you can't get your gold from one warehouse (US gov), you can just go on down to any other gold warehouse in the world to get your gold back.

The note issuing gold warehouse (US gov) has given you compensation. Unless you have some sort of attachment to the specific gold pieces stored in the note issuing gold warehouse, it doesn't matter where you get your gold from as long as you can get it back. And since the US gov has made sure you can get your gold back from anywhere else in the world, what's the problem?

dfi

I have already gone over this before. There is a distinct difference between a Note that can redeemed for a specific weight and measure of gold or silver and a Token that can be exchanged for who knows how much gold or silver. The EXCHANGE RATE varies over time, the REDEMPTION RATE stays the same forever. The fact that you can buy gold with FRTs is irrelevent for this discussion, as will be explained below further.

Regardless of the EFFECTS of inflation the government's intention to remove the backing of gold was so it could inflate the currency. Prior to 1963 the face value of currency was greater than the gold or silver that could be redeemed for it, however, the Federal Reserve ever since it was established in 1913 was causing inflation. Eventually the wiggle room between the face value of the Notes and the specie value of the gold and silver that they could be redeemed for dried up. In order to continue inflating the currency the government had to stop honoring the Notes and did so in 1968 (I believe) but it immediately started plucking all FRNs out of circulation and replacing them with FRTs in 1963.

Soon after that, the government passed the Coinage Act of 1965 which pulled all silver quarters (which were 90% silver) out of circulation and replaced them with the clad that we have today. It also said that no coins with more than 40% silver will be minted for general circulation, and even that was killed later on. The Coinage Act of 1965 also made some changes to the "Legal Tender (sic) Laws".

To me it is no wonder that a quarter from 1964 or before is now worth about 4X its face value.

Why does any of this matter at all? It doesn't matter whether or not the paper currency denotes the weight in gold/silver you can redeem. The only thing that matters is how much gold you could've gotten when the government first stopped redeeming paper currency for gold. At that point, it was clearly stated that the purpose of going away from the gold standard was to start using monetary policy. People had the option of using the paper currency as is, or converting it back into gold and hiding the gold under their pillows.

As you said yourself, prior to 1963 the face value of currency was greater than the gold or silver that could be redeemed for it. The redemption rate only matters if you personally exchanged gold for a note and want to redeem the note for gold. And anyone who had exchanged gold for a note and wanted to get the same weight (and even more) in gold back could have. For everyone else, the paper currency merely became the new medium of exchange.

You want to talk about inflation? The california gold rush supplied 1/3 of the world's current gold supply. How's that for inflation?

dfi

It matters because the government did all of this deceptively. The government knew in the beginning that it would be difficult to issue FRTs, instead of genuine Notes. Therefore, it built up trust with the American people. People trusted the government because they could always redeem their FRNs for dollars on demand. By building up that trust, it had baited the American people into accepting government issued paper currency. As I said before, the gold standard was not an issue before 1963 for the government because the face value of the Notes was greater than the gold or silver coin that they could be redeemed for. Therefore, few people probably actually redeemed their Notes. Once the "wiggle room" between the face value of the Notes and the metal started to close due to inflation the government decided that it was time to exercise its ability to take advantage of people's colloquialisms and ignorance.

The government knew that everyone had started calling FRNs dollars, mainly because they were probably rarely redeemed for real dollars, people just lost connection with what a dollar really was. The government knew this and it knew that the public being ignorant would not notice the removal of the words: "WILL PAY TO THE BEARER ON DEMAND" from the Notes. It did know however, that if it stopped labeling the the Notes, Notes and dollars the public would not accept them. The public would quickly realize that something was amiss and they would investigate further. So, the government decided it would fool the masses at the expense of being discovered by a few. It didn't care that a few people would discover the true implications, for they are in the extreme minority.

Announcing that the government was going off the gold standard was not good enough, the reason why is that people, being ignorant probably didn't have a clue what that meant or what the implications were. The government knew this, so it knew that it could announce this and still get away with the switch, because they knew that as long as Joe Six Pack saw green, he saw Note and he saw dollar on his paper currency nothing would be different to him (boy was Joe Six Pack wrong, cause hyperinflation hit not long after).

Anybody who advocates taking advantage of the ignorant and weak minded is an inherently evil person.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

It matters because the government did all of this deceptively. The government knew in the beginning that it would be difficult to issue FRTs, instead of genuine Notes. Therefore, it built up trust with the American people. People trusted the government because they could always redeem their FRNs for dollars on demand. By building up that trust, it had baited the American people into accepting government issued paper currency. As I said before, the gold standard was not an issue before 1963 for the government because the face value of the Notes was greater than the gold or silver coin that they could be redeemed for. Therefore, few people probably actually redeemed their Notes. Once the "wiggle room" between the face value of the Notes and the metal started to close due to inflation the government decided that it was time to exercise its ability to take advantage of people's colloquialisms and ignorance.

The government knew that everyone had started calling FRNs dollars, mainly because they were probably rarely redeemed for real dollars, people just lost connection with what a dollar really was. The government knew this and it knew that the public being ignorant would not notice the removal of the words: "WILL PAY TO THE BEARER ON DEMAND" from the Notes. It did know however, that if it stopped labeling the the Notes, Notes and dollars the public would not accept them. The public would quickly realize that something was amiss and they would investigate further. So, the government decided it would fool the masses at the expense of being discovered by a few. It didn't care that a few people would discover the true implications, for they are in the extreme minority.

Announcing that the government was going off the gold standard was not good enough, the reason why is that people, being ignorant probably didn't have a clue what that meant or what the implications were. The government knew this, so it knew that it could announce this and still get away with the switch, because they knew that as long as Joe Six Pack saw green, he saw Note and he saw dollar on his paper currency nothing would be different to him (boy was Joe Six Pack wrong, cause hyperinflation hit not long after).

Anybody who advocates taking advantage of the ignorant and weak minded is an inherently evil person.

But what does this actually mean to us? Nothing!

I do not care that I cannot convert this twenty in my pocket into gold, gold is worthless to me unless it is shaped into a piece of jewelry, the 20 is not.

Look. You are not an economist. You probably know about as much as anybody else here, except you feel like you're more knowledgable because you have read this book. Well, let me tell you.. there are far more books on economy out there. Why don't you pick some up and read through them? I am sure there is a book that explains exactly why the government switched. You're a fool if you believe it was to "trick" the american public. Trick us into what?! It doesen't make any sense.

If your whole argument is that it caused hyperinflation... I guess that was the result, then, and there's nothing we can do about it since it has already happened. Inflation is a necessary evil. Would you rather have deflation?

Your rantings have no implications in the real world. It's just alarmist bullsh!t. Sorry.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Dissipate

It matters because the government did all of this deceptively. The government knew in the beginning that it would be difficult to issue FRTs, instead of genuine Notes. Therefore, it built up trust with the American people. People trusted the government because they could always redeem their FRNs for dollars on demand. By building up that trust, it had baited the American people into accepting government issued paper currency. As I said before, the gold standard was not an issue before 1963 for the government because the face value of the Notes was greater than the gold or silver coin that they could be redeemed for. Therefore, few people probably actually redeemed their Notes. Once the "wiggle room" between the face value of the Notes and the metal started to close due to inflation the government decided that it was time to exercise its ability to take advantage of people's colloquialisms and ignorance.

The government knew that everyone had started calling FRNs dollars, mainly because they were probably rarely redeemed for real dollars, people just lost connection with what a dollar really was. The government knew this and it knew that the public being ignorant would not notice the removal of the words: "WILL PAY TO THE BEARER ON DEMAND" from the Notes. It did know however, that if it stopped labeling the the Notes, Notes and dollars the public would not accept them. The public would quickly realize that something was amiss and they would investigate further. So, the government decided it would fool the masses at the expense of being discovered by a few. It didn't care that a few people would discover the true implications, for they are in the extreme minority.

Announcing that the government was going off the gold standard was not good enough, the reason why is that people, being ignorant probably didn't have a clue what that meant or what the implications were. The government knew this, so it knew that it could announce this and still get away with the switch, because they knew that as long as Joe Six Pack saw green, he saw Note and he saw dollar on his paper currency nothing would be different to him (boy was Joe Six Pack wrong, cause hyperinflation hit not long after).

Anybody who advocates taking advantage of the ignorant and weak minded is an inherently evil person.

But what does this actually mean to us? Nothing!

Educating people about government deception means something to me.

I do not care that I cannot convert this twenty in my pocket into gold, gold is worthless to me unless it is shaped into a piece of jewelry, the 20 is not.

Look. You are not an economist. You probably know about as much as anybody else here, except you feel like you're more knowledgable because you have read this book. Well, let me tell you.. there are far more books on economy out there. Why don't you pick some up and read through them? I am sure there is a book that explains exactly why the government switched. You're a fool if you believe it was to "trick" the american public. Trick us into what?! It doesen't make any sense.

Outside the context of inflation this is not topic in economics, it is a topic mainly in the study of definitions of words, and the law. Please, tell me, in what way was the OP related to economics?

If your whole argument is that it caused hyperinflation... I guess that was the result, then, and there's nothing we can do about it since it has already happened. Inflation is a necessary evil. Would you rather have deflation?

No, my argument is not that it caused hyperinflation. My argument is that the acceptance of the paper currency you use today was brought about by massive deception and that the government is continuing to deceive by printing dollar and Note on FRTs. My goal is to get people to THINK about our monetary system today, and I believe that if I can show them how the government blatantly deceived then they will know that it is not too far fetched that other malicious activities are occurring.

Your rantings have no implications in the real world. It's just alarmist bullsh!t. Sorry.

My "rantings" have enormous implications in the real world, for my "rantings" have clearly shown that the fabric of our economy (the monetary system) is derived from massive deception. This is not alarmist, this is merely education. I have not claimed at any time that the economy is going to collapse tomorrow, or that paper currency will become worthless. Please stop trying to paint me as something that I am not.

 

[rainypickles]

i got to page 2 and got sick of this. this is retarded. its money. you are arguing semantics. would it make you happy if the FEDS renamed the dollar the washington? then its clearly not money, and you can toss all of yours.

this was a waste of time =(

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Dissipate

It matters because the government did all of this deceptively. The government knew in the beginning that it would be difficult to issue FRTs, instead of genuine Notes. Therefore, it built up trust with the American people. People trusted the government because they could always redeem their FRNs for dollars on demand. By building up that trust, it had baited the American people into accepting government issued paper currency. As I said before, the gold standard was not an issue before 1963 for the government because the face value of the Notes was greater than the gold or silver coin that they could be redeemed for. Therefore, few people probably actually redeemed their Notes. Once the "wiggle room" between the face value of the Notes and the metal started to close due to inflation the government decided that it was time to exercise its ability to take advantage of people's colloquialisms and ignorance.

The government knew that everyone had started calling FRNs dollars, mainly because they were probably rarely redeemed for real dollars, people just lost connection with what a dollar really was. The government knew this and it knew that the public being ignorant would not notice the removal of the words: "WILL PAY TO THE BEARER ON DEMAND" from the Notes. It did know however, that if it stopped labeling the the Notes, Notes and dollars the public would not accept them. The public would quickly realize that something was amiss and they would investigate further. So, the government decided it would fool the masses at the expense of being discovered by a few. It didn't care that a few people would discover the true implications, for they are in the extreme minority.

Announcing that the government was going off the gold standard was not good enough, the reason why is that people, being ignorant probably didn't have a clue what that meant or what the implications were. The government knew this, so it knew that it could announce this and still get away with the switch, because they knew that as long as Joe Six Pack saw green, he saw Note and he saw dollar on his paper currency nothing would be different to him (boy was Joe Six Pack wrong, cause hyperinflation hit not long after).

Anybody who advocates taking advantage of the ignorant and weak minded is an inherently evil person.

But what does this actually mean to us? Nothing!

Educating people about government deception means something to me.

I do not care that I cannot convert this twenty in my pocket into gold, gold is worthless to me unless it is shaped into a piece of jewelry, the 20 is not.

Look. You are not an economist. You probably know about as much as anybody else here, except you feel like you're more knowledgable because you have read this book. Well, let me tell you.. there are far more books on economy out there. Why don't you pick some up and read through them? I am sure there is a book that explains exactly why the government switched. You're a fool if you believe it was to "trick" the american public. Trick us into what?! It doesen't make any sense.

Outside the context of inflation this is not topic in economics, it is a topic mainly in the study of definitions of words, and the law. Please, tell me, in what way was the OP related to economics?

If your whole argument is that it caused hyperinflation... I guess that was the result, then, and there's nothing we can do about it since it has already happened. Inflation is a necessary evil. Would you rather have deflation?

No, my argument is not that it caused hyperinflation. My argument is that the acceptance of the paper currency you use today was brought about by massive deception and that the government is continuing to deceive by printing dollar and Note on FRTs. My goal is to get people to THINK about our monetary system today, and I believe that if I can show them how the government blatantly deceived then they will know that it is not too far fetched that other malicious activities are occurring.

Your rantings have no implications in the real world. It's just alarmist bullsh!t. Sorry.

My "rantings" have enormous implications in the real world, for my "rantings" have clearly shown that the fabric of our economy (the monetary system) is derived from massive deception. This is not alarmist, this is merely education. I have not claimed at any time that the economy is going to collapse tomorrow, or that paper currency will become worthless. Please stop trying to paint me as something that I am not.

Uh..... we're not being decieved if nobody expects to be able to turn their notes, tokens, dollars, or whatever the hell else you want to call them in for metal anyway.

So would you be happy if they took those words off our money? What exactly would change if they did that? Nothing! So what's the point?

You still haven't named any implications. You said they were enormous. What are they?

There is no deception going on. How are we being told it is one way, when infact it is another? We are not.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: rainypickles
i got to page 2 and got sick of this. this is retarded. its money. you are arguing semantics. would it make you happy if the FEDS renamed the dollar the washington? then its clearly not money, and you can toss all of yours.

this was a waste of time =(

se·man·tics ( P ) Pronunciation Key (s-mntks)
n. (used with a sing. or pl. verb)
Linguistics. The study or science of meaning in language.

Indeed I am arguing semantics. Semantics that happen to be extremely important. Please explain how this is retarded. No, it would not make me happy if the feds renamed the "dollar" the "Washington". In relation to this subject I would be happier if:

A. They stopped printing Note, and started printing Token instead or some other fitting word.

B. Removed the utterly nonsensical phrase: "THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE"

C. Removed all references to dollar(s).

D. Change the likeness of the tokens so they are nothing like the original genuine Notes that were removed from circulation.

Also for coins:

A. Remove the phrase "quarter dollar" from quarters. Put "quarter token" instead.

B. Remove the phrase "half dollar" from half "dollars". Put "half token" instead.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Dissipate

It matters because the government did all of this deceptively. The government knew in the beginning that it would be difficult to issue FRTs, instead of genuine Notes. Therefore, it built up trust with the American people. People trusted the government because they could always redeem their FRNs for dollars on demand. By building up that trust, it had baited the American people into accepting government issued paper currency. As I said before, the gold standard was not an issue before 1963 for the government because the face value of the Notes was greater than the gold or silver coin that they could be redeemed for. Therefore, few people probably actually redeemed their Notes. Once the "wiggle room" between the face value of the Notes and the metal started to close due to inflation the government decided that it was time to exercise its ability to take advantage of people's colloquialisms and ignorance.

The government knew that everyone had started calling FRNs dollars, mainly because they were probably rarely redeemed for real dollars, people just lost connection with what a dollar really was. The government knew this and it knew that the public being ignorant would not notice the removal of the words: "WILL PAY TO THE BEARER ON DEMAND" from the Notes. It did know however, that if it stopped labeling the the Notes, Notes and dollars the public would not accept them. The public would quickly realize that something was amiss and they would investigate further. So, the government decided it would fool the masses at the expense of being discovered by a few. It didn't care that a few people would discover the true implications, for they are in the extreme minority.

Announcing that the government was going off the gold standard was not good enough, the reason why is that people, being ignorant probably didn't have a clue what that meant or what the implications were. The government knew this, so it knew that it could announce this and still get away with the switch, because they knew that as long as Joe Six Pack saw green, he saw Note and he saw dollar on his paper currency nothing would be different to him (boy was Joe Six Pack wrong, cause hyperinflation hit not long after).

Anybody who advocates taking advantage of the ignorant and weak minded is an inherently evil person.

But what does this actually mean to us? Nothing!

Educating people about government deception means something to me.

I do not care that I cannot convert this twenty in my pocket into gold, gold is worthless to me unless it is shaped into a piece of jewelry, the 20 is not.

Look. You are not an economist. You probably know about as much as anybody else here, except you feel like you're more knowledgable because you have read this book. Well, let me tell you.. there are far more books on economy out there. Why don't you pick some up and read through them? I am sure there is a book that explains exactly why the government switched. You're a fool if you believe it was to "trick" the american public. Trick us into what?! It doesen't make any sense.

Outside the context of inflation this is not topic in economics, it is a topic mainly in the study of definitions of words, and the law. Please, tell me, in what way was the OP related to economics?

If your whole argument is that it caused hyperinflation... I guess that was the result, then, and there's nothing we can do about it since it has already happened. Inflation is a necessary evil. Would you rather have deflation?

No, my argument is not that it caused hyperinflation. My argument is that the acceptance of the paper currency you use today was brought about by massive deception and that the government is continuing to deceive by printing dollar and Note on FRTs. My goal is to get people to THINK about our monetary system today, and I believe that if I can show them how the government blatantly deceived then they will know that it is not too far fetched that other malicious activities are occurring.

Your rantings have no implications in the real world. It's just alarmist bullsh!t. Sorry.

My "rantings" have enormous implications in the real world, for my "rantings" have clearly shown that the fabric of our economy (the monetary system) is derived from massive deception. This is not alarmist, this is merely education. I have not claimed at any time that the economy is going to collapse tomorrow, or that paper currency will become worthless. Please stop trying to paint me as something that I am not.

Uh..... we're not being decieved if nobody expects to be able to turn their notes, tokens, dollars, or whatever the hell else you want to call them in for metal anyway.

Intentional misuse of language is deception.

So would you be happy if they took those words off our money? What exactly would change if they did that? Nothing! So what's the point?

I wouldn't be happy, but I would be happier. Anyways, that is not what I want. I just want people to know how blatantly deceitful FRTs are.

You still haven't named any implications. You said they were enormous. What are they?

I clearly said that the implications of all this is that massive deception occurred.

There is no deception going on. How are we being told it is one way, when infact it is another? We are not.

Read above, intentional misuse of language is deception.

 

[Sahakiel]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

HuH? What part of no expiration date do you not understand? The Notes WERE defaulted on after 1968. However, there is no legal definition of dollar anywhere in any U.S. law that I know of except the word dollar is mentioned twice in the Constitution, but essentially, even though there is no legal definition of dollar the government basically said a dollar is now an FRT and will only exchange genuine FRNs for FRTs. Since the government says that dollars are now FRTs it has committed what is known as switch and bait. Switch and bait is where you offer someone one thing, and then right at the exchange you give them another. When the government offered citizens dollars for their FRNs, it baited them into accepting U.S. paper currency, then in 1968 it switched it up on them, offering them only FRTs for their FRNs. Hence, the switch and bait. Since there is no lawful definition of dollar (that I know of), there is no illegality of what the government did(in this context, the Note issue could be more damning). However, just because something is legal does not mean it is ethical, in this case the government abused its power and deceived the American people. That is all I am saying. The Note issue is seperate but carries equal weight. Both these issues combined make a damning case, there is no wiggling out of it.

It is becoming apparent you barely understand your own assertions. The notes were not defaulted in 1968. US dollars could still be redeemed for gold and many people did so. The US officially ended the last semblance of the gold standard in 1971 when the government no longer exchanged dollars to fixed amounts of gold.
The legal term you are trying to use is "bait and switch." The US government did little more than the switch from one currency to another. It was no different than the instances when the Federal Government flipflopped on using silver and bimetalism. If you boil it down to the core, the US government did not deceive the American people for one simple reason: You cannot deceive a person into believing what he already knows.

Why are you bringing up inflation again? This is a side topic at best. I only brought up inflation again to mention the government's motive in all of this. For every crime has a motive, and debating the motive is pointless, we are debating the crime (crime being used metaphorically).

I bring it up because you repeatedly refer to it without fully understanding it. In the above posting you use it as the basis for the alleged motive of the US government without recognition for deflation. In fact, you completely ignore the fact that deflation in relation to material goods is effectively extinct. Currency exchange is an entirely different topic.

 

[shazbot]

I have a better government deception for you. Its 3 letters, starts with W, ends in D, and has the middle initial M.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Dissipate

It matters because the government did all of this deceptively. The government knew in the beginning that it would be difficult to issue FRTs, instead of genuine Notes. Therefore, it built up trust with the American people. People trusted the government because they could always redeem their FRNs for dollars on demand. By building up that trust, it had baited the American people into accepting government issued paper currency. As I said before, the gold standard was not an issue before 1963 for the government because the face value of the Notes was greater than the gold or silver coin that they could be redeemed for. Therefore, few people probably actually redeemed their Notes. Once the "wiggle room" between the face value of the Notes and the metal started to close due to inflation the government decided that it was time to exercise its ability to take advantage of people's colloquialisms and ignorance.

The government knew that everyone had started calling FRNs dollars, mainly because they were probably rarely redeemed for real dollars, people just lost connection with what a dollar really was. The government knew this and it knew that the public being ignorant would not notice the removal of the words: "WILL PAY TO THE BEARER ON DEMAND" from the Notes. It did know however, that if it stopped labeling the the Notes, Notes and dollars the public would not accept them. The public would quickly realize that something was amiss and they would investigate further. So, the government decided it would fool the masses at the expense of being discovered by a few. It didn't care that a few people would discover the true implications, for they are in the extreme minority.

Announcing that the government was going off the gold standard was not good enough, the reason why is that people, being ignorant probably didn't have a clue what that meant or what the implications were. The government knew this, so it knew that it could announce this and still get away with the switch, because they knew that as long as Joe Six Pack saw green, he saw Note and he saw dollar on his paper currency nothing would be different to him (boy was Joe Six Pack wrong, cause hyperinflation hit not long after).

Anybody who advocates taking advantage of the ignorant and weak minded is an inherently evil person.

But what does this actually mean to us? Nothing!

Educating people about government deception means something to me.

I do not care that I cannot convert this twenty in my pocket into gold, gold is worthless to me unless it is shaped into a piece of jewelry, the 20 is not.

Look. You are not an economist. You probably know about as much as anybody else here, except you feel like you're more knowledgable because you have read this book. Well, let me tell you.. there are far more books on economy out there. Why don't you pick some up and read through them? I am sure there is a book that explains exactly why the government switched. You're a fool if you believe it was to "trick" the american public. Trick us into what?! It doesen't make any sense.

Outside the context of inflation this is not topic in economics, it is a topic mainly in the study of definitions of words, and the law. Please, tell me, in what way was the OP related to economics?

If your whole argument is that it caused hyperinflation... I guess that was the result, then, and there's nothing we can do about it since it has already happened. Inflation is a necessary evil. Would you rather have deflation?

No, my argument is not that it caused hyperinflation. My argument is that the acceptance of the paper currency you use today was brought about by massive deception and that the government is continuing to deceive by printing dollar and Note on FRTs. My goal is to get people to THINK about our monetary system today, and I believe that if I can show them how the government blatantly deceived then they will know that it is not too far fetched that other malicious activities are occurring.

Your rantings have no implications in the real world. It's just alarmist bullsh!t. Sorry.

My "rantings" have enormous implications in the real world, for my "rantings" have clearly shown that the fabric of our economy (the monetary system) is derived from massive deception. This is not alarmist, this is merely education. I have not claimed at any time that the economy is going to collapse tomorrow, or that paper currency will become worthless. Please stop trying to paint me as something that I am not.

Uh..... we're not being decieved if nobody expects to be able to turn their notes, tokens, dollars, or whatever the hell else you want to call them in for metal anyway.

Intentional misuse of language is deception.

So would you be happy if they took those words off our money? What exactly would change if they did that? Nothing! So what's the point?

I wouldn't be happy, but I would be happier. Anyways, that is not what I want. I just want people to know how blatantly deceitful FRTs are.

You still haven't named any implications. You said they were enormous. What are they?

I clearly said that the implications of all this is that massive deception occurred.

There is no deception going on. How are we being told it is one way, when infact it is another? We are not.

Read above, intentional misuse of language is deception.

Oh Please. You think when we did away with the gold standard, they all sat around and said "Yes.. We're going to decieve the public! We're going to keep the word "note" on the money! Muwhahahahahahahahah!!"

I don't know what to say to that. What purpose would it serve?! It doesen't make any sense! You're reading(um, literally..) WAYYYY too much into this.

Everything you have listed would serve no purpose. Nothing would change. Peoples perception of money would not change. People would still understand that they cannot exchange their moeny in for metal on a whim. I mean WTF? It quite simply just doesen't make any sense.

There are FAR worse things on the "deception meter". This doesen't even register.

Why are the words "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private" nonsensical? Because it says "note" and not "token"? Get real.

Nothing would change if they changed it from note to token, so again... what the HELL is the point?!!

 

[Sahakiel]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Outside the context of inflation this is not topic in economics, it is a topic mainly in the study of definitions of words, and the law. Please, tell me, in what way was the OP related to economics?

Examination of currency is part of economics.

No, my argument is not that it caused hyperinflation. My argument is that the acceptance of the paper currency you use today was brought about by massive deception and that the government is continuing to deceive by printing dollar and Note on FRTs. My goal is to get people to THINK about our monetary system today, and I believe that if I can show them how the government blatantly deceived then they will know that it is not too far fetched that other malicious activities are occurring.

The bigger problem so far is getting YOU, dissipate, to think about the monetary system. So far, it has been unsuccessful, but I am sure eventually somebody will be able to initiate your thinking processes. Your argument is flawed, and you have trouble with consistency when defending your assertions.

My "rantings" have enormous implications in the real world, for my "rantings" have clearly shown that the fabric of our economy (the monetary system) is derived from massive deception. This is not alarmist, this is merely education. I have not claimed at any time that the economy is going to collapse tomorrow, or that paper currency will become worthless. Please stop trying to paint me as something that I am not.

1. There exists a well known phrase in physics: "Perception is reality."
2. Your "rantings" are NOT clear, which is why there exists so much resistance to accepting your assertions. Your inconsistencies don't help your cause, and neither does your apparent level of economic understanding.
3. No one needs to paint you. You've done all the painting yourself.

Intentional misuse of language is deception.

This is true. Your assertion of deception by the US government hinges on the semantics of language. The problem with your assertion of deception is that you have implied that languages are static. This is most certainly false. Until you can understand the nature of language, it may be best to avoid arguing semantics.

I wouldn't be happy, but I would be happier. Anyways, that is not what I want. I just want people to know how blatantly deceitful FRTs are.

I clearly said that the implications of all this is that massive deception occurred.

Read above, intentional misuse of language is deception.

Reference section on painting and semantics. Also look up begging the question.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Dissipate

It matters because the government did all of this deceptively. The government knew in the beginning that it would be difficult to issue FRTs, instead of genuine Notes. Therefore, it built up trust with the American people. People trusted the government because they could always redeem their FRNs for dollars on demand. By building up that trust, it had baited the American people into accepting government issued paper currency. As I said before, the gold standard was not an issue before 1963 for the government because the face value of the Notes was greater than the gold or silver coin that they could be redeemed for. Therefore, few people probably actually redeemed their Notes. Once the "wiggle room" between the face value of the Notes and the metal started to close due to inflation the government decided that it was time to exercise its ability to take advantage of people's colloquialisms and ignorance.

The government knew that everyone had started calling FRNs dollars, mainly because they were probably rarely redeemed for real dollars, people just lost connection with what a dollar really was. The government knew this and it knew that the public being ignorant would not notice the removal of the words: "WILL PAY TO THE BEARER ON DEMAND" from the Notes. It did know however, that if it stopped labeling the the Notes, Notes and dollars the public would not accept them. The public would quickly realize that something was amiss and they would investigate further. So, the government decided it would fool the masses at the expense of being discovered by a few. It didn't care that a few people would discover the true implications, for they are in the extreme minority.

Announcing that the government was going off the gold standard was not good enough, the reason why is that people, being ignorant probably didn't have a clue what that meant or what the implications were. The government knew this, so it knew that it could announce this and still get away with the switch, because they knew that as long as Joe Six Pack saw green, he saw Note and he saw dollar on his paper currency nothing would be different to him (boy was Joe Six Pack wrong, cause hyperinflation hit not long after).

Anybody who advocates taking advantage of the ignorant and weak minded is an inherently evil person.

But what does this actually mean to us? Nothing!

Educating people about government deception means something to me.

I do not care that I cannot convert this twenty in my pocket into gold, gold is worthless to me unless it is shaped into a piece of jewelry, the 20 is not.

Look. You are not an economist. You probably know about as much as anybody else here, except you feel like you're more knowledgable because you have read this book. Well, let me tell you.. there are far more books on economy out there. Why don't you pick some up and read through them? I am sure there is a book that explains exactly why the government switched. You're a fool if you believe it was to "trick" the american public. Trick us into what?! It doesen't make any sense.

Outside the context of inflation this is not topic in economics, it is a topic mainly in the study of definitions of words, and the law. Please, tell me, in what way was the OP related to economics?

If your whole argument is that it caused hyperinflation... I guess that was the result, then, and there's nothing we can do about it since it has already happened. Inflation is a necessary evil. Would you rather have deflation?

No, my argument is not that it caused hyperinflation. My argument is that the acceptance of the paper currency you use today was brought about by massive deception and that the government is continuing to deceive by printing dollar and Note on FRTs. My goal is to get people to THINK about our monetary system today, and I believe that if I can show them how the government blatantly deceived then they will know that it is not too far fetched that other malicious activities are occurring.

Your rantings have no implications in the real world. It's just alarmist bullsh!t. Sorry.

My "rantings" have enormous implications in the real world, for my "rantings" have clearly shown that the fabric of our economy (the monetary system) is derived from massive deception. This is not alarmist, this is merely education. I have not claimed at any time that the economy is going to collapse tomorrow, or that paper currency will become worthless. Please stop trying to paint me as something that I am not.

Uh..... we're not being decieved if nobody expects to be able to turn their notes, tokens, dollars, or whatever the hell else you want to call them in for metal anyway.

Intentional misuse of language is deception.

So would you be happy if they took those words off our money? What exactly would change if they did that? Nothing! So what's the point?

I wouldn't be happy, but I would be happier. Anyways, that is not what I want. I just want people to know how blatantly deceitful FRTs are.

You still haven't named any implications. You said they were enormous. What are they?

I clearly said that the implications of all this is that massive deception occurred.

There is no deception going on. How are we being told it is one way, when infact it is another? We are not.

Read above, intentional misuse of language is deception.

Oh Please. You think when we did away with the gold standard, they all sat around and said "Yes.. We're going to decieve the public! We're going to keep the word "note" on the money! Muwhahahahahahahahah!!"

I don't know what to say to that. What purpose would it serve?! It doesen't make any sense! You're reading(um, literally..) WAYYYY too much into this.

Everything you have listed would serve no purpose. Nothing would change. Peoples perception of money would not change. People would still understand that they cannot exchange their moeny in for metal on a whim. I mean WTF? It quite simply just doesen't make any sense.

There are FAR worse things on the "deception meter". This doesen't even register.

Why are the words "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private" nonsensical? Because it says "note" and not "token"? Get real.

Partly, but that is not the main reason. I'm glad you asked though.

Nothing would change if they changed it from note to token, so again... what the HELL is the point?!!

This is from the book:

Tender: (verb transitive): a motion or inclining toward, initiating movement. Ex.:"Please tender your rent payment directly to the manager.

Missing Articles

To illustrate further the necessity of articles (a, an and the), consider this example of a meaningless sentence: I saw bird yesterday. Because no a or the is placed before bird, my utterance lacks specific meaning, especially at law.

Here's another example of a meaningless sentence: John made legal tender to Charles.. Because no a or the was placed before legal, this sentence has no clear meaning at law or anywhere else. But the sentence would be perfectly clear if it read: John made a legal tender to Charles, or, John made the legal tender to Charles. In other words, the phrase legal tender alone has no clear meaning, either in legal contemplation or in any other formal usage.

Now on to the fun stuff:

Next, please look at the eleven words in the upper-left corner of the front side:

THS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE

These words mean absolutely nothing at law. Here is why:

1. First, the words THIS NOTE are irrational. You are not looking at a financial instrument recognized by law as a Note, an evidence of a debt, because two mandatory elements of a genuine Note are missing: Payee and Due-date are not identified. Even if the intent of the phrase THIS NOTE is to refer to a memorandum or other general written communication, the phrase is still irrational because no complete sentence is present, which will become unmistakably clear in a moment.

2. The phrase LEGAL TENDER is not preceded by an article, definite or indefinite (the, or a, respectively). Without a preceding article, LEGAL TENDER has exactly the same meaning as ABCDEFGHIJK, that is, no meaning at all.

3. FOR ALL DEBTS is irrational because a Note cannot be used to pay a debt. A Note or an IOU is evidence of a debt. If I owed you $100 and gave you an IOU as proof of the debt, would you have been paid? Of course not. Can you use your Note at the bank to pay off the mortgage on your house? Of course not.

4. ALL includes PUBLIC AND PRIVATE . Putting PUBLIC AND PRIVATE after ALL DEBTS is utterly redundant and useless. If ALL has any meaning whatsoever, there is no rational purpose to following ALL (DEBTS) with PUBLIC AND PRIVATE

Proof of a Lie

Now let's do a Before-and-After comparison of the cluster of eleven words as they are printed on the "Note." Here's the Before:

THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE

A. Eliminate THIS NOTE. It's not a financial instrument.

B. Eliminate LEGAL TENDER. This two-word phrase has no meaning due to the absence of a preceding definite or indefinite article.

C. Eliminate FOR ALL DEBTS. The document, on its face, purports to be a Note. If it is a Note, DEBTS must be removed because Notes cannot be used to pay debts; OBLIGATION would have to be used instead of DEBTS. But because DEBTS is used, the phrase THIS NOTE cannot be used. Regardless of which error is accepted, the supposed meaning of the entire sentence is destroyed by removal of either NOTE or DEBTS. Also, since FOR ALL does not contain clarifying terminology - FOR payment of all or FOR discharge of ALL - the entire phrase FOR ALL DEBTS is barren of legal or financial meaning and therefore must be removed.

D. Eliminate PUBLIC AND PRIVATE. This phrase is superfluous. It has no substantive relationship to the preceding terms.

By eliminating meaningless and obfuscating words, here's what our "sentence" looks like, the After:

IS

What does IS mean? Does it mean anything? (I laughed out loud so hard after reading this.)

Now please recall our observation about THIS NOTE in paragraph 1. Even if THIS NOTE were not eliminated we would still be left with an unintelligible cluster of words: THIS NOTE IS

What rational meaning can possibly be attached to either THIS NOTE IS or even THIS MEMORANDUM IS? Can you now see that what at first appeared to be a real sentence is only a collection of sentence-fragements, utterly devoid of meaning at law?

Please consider one other aspect of the curious wording on this and later "Notes"(bills). Placement of the wholly unnecessary terms PUBLIC AND PRIVATE after ALL DEBTS tends to imply that the only important question any "reasonable" citizen might raise about the paper currency might be: "Exactly which debts can I pay with this Note?" The "Note's" issuer then becomes the citizen's friend by answering the question in advance of it even being asked. The implied answer is that the Note can be used to pay all debts, meaning all public and private debts. However, the unnecessary terms and the odd construction tend to manipulate the citizen by planting or reinforcing the utterly false notion that a bill, a Note, can be used to pay a debt. This remarkably odd construction might tell us that its author was simply not skilled in writing, that he "accidently" used an awkward construction, which purely by chance of course, helps perpetrate criminal fraud. Here are three questions you may wish to ponder: a) Who put this strange language on the nation's paper currency, poorly trained and unskilled clerk typists or highly skilled and well trained lawyers? b) Is this odd construction accidental or was it put there deliberately? c) If deliberately, for what purpose?

Perhaps you can now better appreciate and understand why knowledgeable people refer to certain pieces of paper as Federal Reserve Tokens, abbreviated FRTs.

 

[SynthDude2001]

I can't believe I've actually read through all of this.

I nominate this as the Worst Thread Evar? - here we have Dissipate arguing that we've all been deceived by the government, but does anyone notice how he seems to be the only one with this point of view?

I'm not going to lie and say I know a whole lot about Economics because I really don't, but it seems clear to me that dollars (yes, dollars) today are just as useful as they ever were. At the risk of sounding like a few others who have already replied in this thread - so what if I can't exchange my paper currency for gold? This is deception how, exactly? Sounds like nothing but a conspiracy theory to me - what would the government have to gain from such "deception" anyway? I really wonder sometimes if people who spout things such as this actually believe themselves, or are just doing it for attention (look at the length of this thread).

Blah. Anyways, I'll be interested to see how many more pages this drivel goes on...not that it will have any effect on the MONEY in my wallet, of course.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Dissipate

It matters because the government did all of this deceptively. The government knew in the beginning that it would be difficult to issue FRTs, instead of genuine Notes. Therefore, it built up trust with the American people. People trusted the government because they could always redeem their FRNs for dollars on demand. By building up that trust, it had baited the American people into accepting government issued paper currency. As I said before, the gold standard was not an issue before 1963 for the government because the face value of the Notes was greater than the gold or silver coin that they could be redeemed for. Therefore, few people probably actually redeemed their Notes. Once the "wiggle room" between the face value of the Notes and the metal started to close due to inflation the government decided that it was time to exercise its ability to take advantage of people's colloquialisms and ignorance.

The government knew that everyone had started calling FRNs dollars, mainly because they were probably rarely redeemed for real dollars, people just lost connection with what a dollar really was. The government knew this and it knew that the public being ignorant would not notice the removal of the words: "WILL PAY TO THE BEARER ON DEMAND" from the Notes. It did know however, that if it stopped labeling the the Notes, Notes and dollars the public would not accept them. The public would quickly realize that something was amiss and they would investigate further. So, the government decided it would fool the masses at the expense of being discovered by a few. It didn't care that a few people would discover the true implications, for they are in the extreme minority.

Announcing that the government was going off the gold standard was not good enough, the reason why is that people, being ignorant probably didn't have a clue what that meant or what the implications were. The government knew this, so it knew that it could announce this and still get away with the switch, because they knew that as long as Joe Six Pack saw green, he saw Note and he saw dollar on his paper currency nothing would be different to him (boy was Joe Six Pack wrong, cause hyperinflation hit not long after).

Anybody who advocates taking advantage of the ignorant and weak minded is an inherently evil person.

But what does this actually mean to us? Nothing!

Educating people about government deception means something to me.

I do not care that I cannot convert this twenty in my pocket into gold, gold is worthless to me unless it is shaped into a piece of jewelry, the 20 is not.

Look. You are not an economist. You probably know about as much as anybody else here, except you feel like you're more knowledgable because you have read this book. Well, let me tell you.. there are far more books on economy out there. Why don't you pick some up and read through them? I am sure there is a book that explains exactly why the government switched. You're a fool if you believe it was to "trick" the american public. Trick us into what?! It doesen't make any sense.

Outside the context of inflation this is not topic in economics, it is a topic mainly in the study of definitions of words, and the law. Please, tell me, in what way was the OP related to economics?

If your whole argument is that it caused hyperinflation... I guess that was the result, then, and there's nothing we can do about it since it has already happened. Inflation is a necessary evil. Would you rather have deflation?

No, my argument is not that it caused hyperinflation. My argument is that the acceptance of the paper currency you use today was brought about by massive deception and that the government is continuing to deceive by printing dollar and Note on FRTs. My goal is to get people to THINK about our monetary system today, and I believe that if I can show them how the government blatantly deceived then they will know that it is not too far fetched that other malicious activities are occurring.

Your rantings have no implications in the real world. It's just alarmist bullsh!t. Sorry.

My "rantings" have enormous implications in the real world, for my "rantings" have clearly shown that the fabric of our economy (the monetary system) is derived from massive deception. This is not alarmist, this is merely education. I have not claimed at any time that the economy is going to collapse tomorrow, or that paper currency will become worthless. Please stop trying to paint me as something that I am not.

Uh..... we're not being decieved if nobody expects to be able to turn their notes, tokens, dollars, or whatever the hell else you want to call them in for metal anyway.

Intentional misuse of language is deception.

So would you be happy if they took those words off our money? What exactly would change if they did that? Nothing! So what's the point?

I wouldn't be happy, but I would be happier. Anyways, that is not what I want. I just want people to know how blatantly deceitful FRTs are.

You still haven't named any implications. You said they were enormous. What are they?

I clearly said that the implications of all this is that massive deception occurred.

There is no deception going on. How are we being told it is one way, when infact it is another? We are not.

Read above, intentional misuse of language is deception.

Oh Please. You think when we did away with the gold standard, they all sat around and said "Yes.. We're going to decieve the public! We're going to keep the word "note" on the money! Muwhahahahahahahahah!!"

I don't know what to say to that. What purpose would it serve?! It doesen't make any sense! You're reading(um, literally..) WAYYYY too much into this.

Everything you have listed would serve no purpose. Nothing would change. Peoples perception of money would not change. People would still understand that they cannot exchange their moeny in for metal on a whim. I mean WTF? It quite simply just doesen't make any sense.

There are FAR worse things on the "deception meter". This doesen't even register.

Why are the words "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private" nonsensical? Because it says "note" and not "token"? Get real.

Partly, but that is not the main reason. I'm glad you asked though.

Nothing would change if they changed it from note to token, so again... what the HELL is the point?!!

This is from the book:

Tender: (verb transitive): a motion or inclining toward, initiating movement. Ex.:"Please tender your rent payment directly to the manager.

Missing Articles

To illustrate further the necessity of articles (a, an and the), consider this example of a meaningless sentence: I saw bird yesterday. Because no a or the is placed before bird, my utterance lacks specific meaning, especially at law.

Here's another example of a meaningless sentence: John made legal tender to Charles.. Because no a or the was placed before legal, this sentence has no clear meaning at law or anywhere else. But the sentence would be perfectly clear if it read: John made a legal tender to Charles, or, John made the legal tender to Charles. In other words, the phrase legal tender alone has no clear meaning, either in legal contemplation or in any other formal usage.

Now on to the fun stuff:

Next, please look at the eleven words in the upper-left corner of the front side:

THS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE

These words mean absolutely nothing at law. Here is why:

1. First, the words THIS NOTE are irrational. You are not looking at a financial instrument recognized by law as a Note, an evidence of a debt, because two mandatory elements of a genuine Note are missing: Payee and Due-date are not identified. Even if the intent of the phrase THIS NOTE is to refer to a memorandum or other general written communication, the phrase is still irrational because no complete sentence is present, which will become unmistakably clear in a moment.

2. The phrase LEGAL TENDER is not preceded by an article, definite or indefinite (the, or a, respectively). Without a preceding article, LEGAL TENDER has exactly the same meaning as ABCDEFGHIJK, that is, no meaning at all.

3. FOR ALL DEBTS is irrational because a Note cannot be used to pay a debt. A Note or an IOU is evidence of a debt. If I owed you $100 and gave you an IOU as proof of the debt, would you have been paid? Of course not. Can you use your Note at the bank to pay off the mortgage on your house? Of course not.

4. ALL includes PUBLIC AND PRIVATE . Putting PUBLIC AND PRIVATE after ALL DEBTS is utterly redundant and useless. If ALL has any meaning whatsoever, there is no rational purpose to following ALL (DEBTS) with PUBLIC AND PRIVATE

Proof of a Lie

Now let's do a Before-and-After comparison of the cluster of eleven words as they are printed on the "Note." Here's the Before:

THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE

A. Eliminate THIS NOTE. It's not a financial instrument.

B. Eliminate LEGAL TENDER. This two-word phrase has no meaning due to the absence of a preceding definite or indefinite article.

C. Eliminate FOR ALL DEBTS. The document, on its face, purports to be a Note. If it is a Note, DEBTS must be removed because Notes cannot be used to pay debts; OBLIGATION would have to be used instead of DEBTS. But because DEBTS is used, the phrase THIS NOTE cannot be used. Regardless of which error is accepted, the supposed meaning of the entire sentence is destroyed by removal of either NOTE or DEBTS. Also, since FOR ALL does not contain clarifying terminology - FOR payment of all or FOR discharge of ALL - the entire phrase FOR ALL DEBTS is barren of legal or financial meaning and therefore must be removed.

D. Eliminate PUBLIC AND PRIVATE. This phrase is superfluous. It has no substantive relationship to the preceding terms.

By eliminating meaningless and obfuscating words, here's what our "sentence" looks like, the After:

IS

What does IS mean? Does it mean anything? (I laughed out loud so hard after reading this.)

Now please recall our observation about THIS NOTE in paragraph 1. Even if THIS NOTE were not eliminated we would still be left with an unintelligible cluster of words: THIS NOTE IS

What rational meaning can possibly be attached to either THIS NOTE IS or even THIS MEMORANDUM IS? Can you now see that what at first appeared to be a real sentence is only a collection of sentence-fragements, utterly devoid of meaning at law?

Please consider one other aspect of the curious wording on this and later "Notes"(bills). Placement of the wholly unnecessary terms PUBLIC AND PRIVATE after ALL DEBTS tends to imply that the only important question any "reasonable" citizen might raise about the paper currency might be: "Exactly which debts can I pay with this Note?" The "Note's" issuer then becomes the citizen's friend by answering the question in advance of it even being asked. The implied answer is that the Note can be used to pay all debts, meaning all public and private debts. However, the unnecessary terms and the odd construction tend to manipulate the citizen by planting or reinforcing the utterly false notion that a bill, a Note, can be used to pay a debt. This remarkably odd construction might tell us that its author was simply not skilled in writing, that he "accidently" used an awkward construction, which purely by chance of course, helps perpetrate criminal fraud. Here are three questions you may wish to ponder: a) Who put this strange language on the nation's paper currency, poorly trained and unskilled clerk typists or highly skilled and well trained lawyers? b) Is this odd construction accidental or was it put there deliberately? c) If deliberately, for what purpose?

Perhaps you can now better appreciate and understand why knowledgeable people refer to certain pieces of paper as Federal Reserve Tokens, abbreviated FRTs.

Ok, well that's just great. So he's an anal English major.

But it still doesen't mean anything. Fine, let's take all eleven words off of our money. What purpose would it serve? What would happen? NOTHING WOULD CHANGE. It serves no purpose.

Again... What in fscks name is the POINT?!?!?!!?

As others have said, language changes. Who the fsck cares if it doesen't say "This note is a legal tender for all debts, public and private"?!? You and I still know what it means. It means that the god damn money is legal and issued by the federal government.

Dear Lord, help us all. This is almost unbelievable. :shocked:

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Dissipate

It matters because the government did all of this deceptively. The government knew in the beginning that it would be difficult to issue FRTs, instead of genuine Notes. Therefore, it built up trust with the American people. People trusted the government because they could always redeem their FRNs for dollars on demand. By building up that trust, it had baited the American people into accepting government issued paper currency. As I said before, the gold standard was not an issue before 1963 for the government because the face value of the Notes was greater than the gold or silver coin that they could be redeemed for. Therefore, few people probably actually redeemed their Notes. Once the "wiggle room" between the face value of the Notes and the metal started to close due to inflation the government decided that it was time to exercise its ability to take advantage of people's colloquialisms and ignorance.

The government knew that everyone had started calling FRNs dollars, mainly because they were probably rarely redeemed for real dollars, people just lost connection with what a dollar really was. The government knew this and it knew that the public being ignorant would not notice the removal of the words: "WILL PAY TO THE BEARER ON DEMAND" from the Notes. It did know however, that if it stopped labeling the the Notes, Notes and dollars the public would not accept them. The public would quickly realize that something was amiss and they would investigate further. So, the government decided it would fool the masses at the expense of being discovered by a few. It didn't care that a few people would discover the true implications, for they are in the extreme minority.

Announcing that the government was going off the gold standard was not good enough, the reason why is that people, being ignorant probably didn't have a clue what that meant or what the implications were. The government knew this, so it knew that it could announce this and still get away with the switch, because they knew that as long as Joe Six Pack saw green, he saw Note and he saw dollar on his paper currency nothing would be different to him (boy was Joe Six Pack wrong, cause hyperinflation hit not long after).

Anybody who advocates taking advantage of the ignorant and weak minded is an inherently evil person.

But what does this actually mean to us? Nothing!

Educating people about government deception means something to me.

I do not care that I cannot convert this twenty in my pocket into gold, gold is worthless to me unless it is shaped into a piece of jewelry, the 20 is not.

Look. You are not an economist. You probably know about as much as anybody else here, except you feel like you're more knowledgable because you have read this book. Well, let me tell you.. there are far more books on economy out there. Why don't you pick some up and read through them? I am sure there is a book that explains exactly why the government switched. You're a fool if you believe it was to "trick" the american public. Trick us into what?! It doesen't make any sense.

Outside the context of inflation this is not topic in economics, it is a topic mainly in the study of definitions of words, and the law. Please, tell me, in what way was the OP related to economics?

If your whole argument is that it caused hyperinflation... I guess that was the result, then, and there's nothing we can do about it since it has already happened. Inflation is a necessary evil. Would you rather have deflation?

No, my argument is not that it caused hyperinflation. My argument is that the acceptance of the paper currency you use today was brought about by massive deception and that the government is continuing to deceive by printing dollar and Note on FRTs. My goal is to get people to THINK about our monetary system today, and I believe that if I can show them how the government blatantly deceived then they will know that it is not too far fetched that other malicious activities are occurring.

Your rantings have no implications in the real world. It's just alarmist bullsh!t. Sorry.

My "rantings" have enormous implications in the real world, for my "rantings" have clearly shown that the fabric of our economy (the monetary system) is derived from massive deception. This is not alarmist, this is merely education. I have not claimed at any time that the economy is going to collapse tomorrow, or that paper currency will become worthless. Please stop trying to paint me as something that I am not.

Uh..... we're not being decieved if nobody expects to be able to turn their notes, tokens, dollars, or whatever the hell else you want to call them in for metal anyway.

Intentional misuse of language is deception.

So would you be happy if they took those words off our money? What exactly would change if they did that? Nothing! So what's the point?

I wouldn't be happy, but I would be happier. Anyways, that is not what I want. I just want people to know how blatantly deceitful FRTs are.

You still haven't named any implications. You said they were enormous. What are they?

I clearly said that the implications of all this is that massive deception occurred.

There is no deception going on. How are we being told it is one way, when infact it is another? We are not.

Read above, intentional misuse of language is deception.

Oh Please. You think when we did away with the gold standard, they all sat around and said "Yes.. We're going to decieve the public! We're going to keep the word "note" on the money! Muwhahahahahahahahah!!"

I don't know what to say to that. What purpose would it serve?! It doesen't make any sense! You're reading(um, literally..) WAYYYY too much into this.

Everything you have listed would serve no purpose. Nothing would change. Peoples perception of money would not change. People would still understand that they cannot exchange their moeny in for metal on a whim. I mean WTF? It quite simply just doesen't make any sense.

There are FAR worse things on the "deception meter". This doesen't even register.

Why are the words "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private" nonsensical? Because it says "note" and not "token"? Get real.

Partly, but that is not the main reason. I'm glad you asked though.

Nothing would change if they changed it from note to token, so again... what the HELL is the point?!!

This is from the book:

Tender: (verb transitive): a motion or inclining toward, initiating movement. Ex.:"Please tender your rent payment directly to the manager.

Missing Articles

To illustrate further the necessity of articles (a, an and the), consider this example of a meaningless sentence: I saw bird yesterday. Because no a or the is placed before bird, my utterance lacks specific meaning, especially at law.

Here's another example of a meaningless sentence: John made legal tender to Charles.. Because no a or the was placed before legal, this sentence has no clear meaning at law or anywhere else. But the sentence would be perfectly clear if it read: John made a legal tender to Charles, or, John made the legal tender to Charles. In other words, the phrase legal tender alone has no clear meaning, either in legal contemplation or in any other formal usage.

Now on to the fun stuff:

Next, please look at the eleven words in the upper-left corner of the front side:

THS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE

These words mean absolutely nothing at law. Here is why:

1. First, the words THIS NOTE are irrational. You are not looking at a financial instrument recognized by law as a Note, an evidence of a debt, because two mandatory elements of a genuine Note are missing: Payee and Due-date are not identified. Even if the intent of the phrase THIS NOTE is to refer to a memorandum or other general written communication, the phrase is still irrational because no complete sentence is present, which will become unmistakably clear in a moment.

2. The phrase LEGAL TENDER is not preceded by an article, definite or indefinite (the, or a, respectively). Without a preceding article, LEGAL TENDER has exactly the same meaning as ABCDEFGHIJK, that is, no meaning at all.

3. FOR ALL DEBTS is irrational because a Note cannot be used to pay a debt. A Note or an IOU is evidence of a debt. If I owed you $100 and gave you an IOU as proof of the debt, would you have been paid? Of course not. Can you use your Note at the bank to pay off the mortgage on your house? Of course not.

4. ALL includes PUBLIC AND PRIVATE . Putting PUBLIC AND PRIVATE after ALL DEBTS is utterly redundant and useless. If ALL has any meaning whatsoever, there is no rational purpose to following ALL (DEBTS) with PUBLIC AND PRIVATE

Proof of a Lie

Now let's do a Before-and-After comparison of the cluster of eleven words as they are printed on the "Note." Here's the Before:

THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE

A. Eliminate THIS NOTE. It's not a financial instrument.

B. Eliminate LEGAL TENDER. This two-word phrase has no meaning due to the absence of a preceding definite or indefinite article.

C. Eliminate FOR ALL DEBTS. The document, on its face, purports to be a Note. If it is a Note, DEBTS must be removed because Notes cannot be used to pay debts; OBLIGATION would have to be used instead of DEBTS. But because DEBTS is used, the phrase THIS NOTE cannot be used. Regardless of which error is accepted, the supposed meaning of the entire sentence is destroyed by removal of either NOTE or DEBTS. Also, since FOR ALL does not contain clarifying terminology - FOR payment of all or FOR discharge of ALL - the entire phrase FOR ALL DEBTS is barren of legal or financial meaning and therefore must be removed.

D. Eliminate PUBLIC AND PRIVATE. This phrase is superfluous. It has no substantive relationship to the preceding terms.

By eliminating meaningless and obfuscating words, here's what our "sentence" looks like, the After:

IS

What does IS mean? Does it mean anything? (I laughed out loud so hard after reading this.)

Now please recall our observation about THIS NOTE in paragraph 1. Even if THIS NOTE were not eliminated we would still be left with an unintelligible cluster of words: THIS NOTE IS

What rational meaning can possibly be attached to either THIS NOTE IS or even THIS MEMORANDUM IS? Can you now see that what at first appeared to be a real sentence is only a collection of sentence-fragements, utterly devoid of meaning at law?

Please consider one other aspect of the curious wording on this and later "Notes"(bills). Placement of the wholly unnecessary terms PUBLIC AND PRIVATE after ALL DEBTS tends to imply that the only important question any "reasonable" citizen might raise about the paper currency might be: "Exactly which debts can I pay with this Note?" The "Note's" issuer then becomes the citizen's friend by answering the question in advance of it even being asked. The implied answer is that the Note can be used to pay all debts, meaning all public and private debts. However, the unnecessary terms and the odd construction tend to manipulate the citizen by planting or reinforcing the utterly false notion that a bill, a Note, can be used to pay a debt. This remarkably odd construction might tell us that its author was simply not skilled in writing, that he "accidently" used an awkward construction, which purely by chance of course, helps perpetrate criminal fraud. Here are three questions you may wish to ponder: a) Who put this strange language on the nation's paper currency, poorly trained and unskilled clerk typists or highly skilled and well trained lawyers? b) Is this odd construction accidental or was it put there deliberately? c) If deliberately, for what purpose?

Perhaps you can now better appreciate and understand why knowledgeable people refer to certain pieces of paper as Federal Reserve Tokens, abbreviated FRTs.

Ok, well that's just great. So he's an anal English major.

But it still doesen't mean anything. Fine, let's take all eleven words off of our money. What purpose would it serve? What would happen? NOTHING WOULD CHANGE. It serves no purpose.

Again... What in fscks name is the POINT?!?!?!!?

As others have said, language changes. Who the fsck cares if it doesen't say "This note is a legal tender for all debts, public and private"?!? You and I still know what it means. It means that the god damn money is legal and issued by the federal government.

Dear Lord, help us all. This is almost unbelievable. :shocked:

Who said anything about changing anything? You asked a question, you asked why the phrase is nonsensical, I replied, and I used the book to explain step by step why it is completely void of any legal meaning (or meaning period) whatsoever. Once again you are trying to change this into an issue which is unrelated. Nowhere in the entire book does it even talk about changing paper currency. It is merely showing evidence of lies and deception.

It is just like saying "Well I committed fraud by removing critical legal language from my Notes, so now I'll change it to only refer to Tokens." This action would serve no purpose in the sense that the paper currency and its present day "legal" status would not change, but it would serve the purpose of being semantically and legally correct. However, this is getting away from the issue. I want to restate my assertions:

1. The removal of "WILL PAY TO THE BEARER ON DEMAND" while retaining dollar and Note, and distinct likeness on the paper currency was extreme deception.

2. The phrase "THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE" its absolutely meaningless (as shown above), which is evidence of more deception.

3. This decption must be brought to light.

That is it, it would be nice if the government re-labeled the paper currency with the proper terms, but this is not what my assertions are about. Myself and the author merely want people to know what the government did in order to put us on tokens. It did not put us on tokens in an honest manner, it took advantage of ignorance and used deceit. It manipulated words which have specific definitions to its liking, in order to serve its desires to put us on an unbacked monetary system.

You don't believe me? Look at pictures of U.S. paper currency from history, look at the "evolution" from language clearly stating that gold coin will be paid to the bearer on demand, to merely saying X dollars will be paid to the bearer on demand to simply: X dollars.

Also, there are specimens of paper currency from U.S. history that say: A LEGAL TENDER , which was the semi-proper usage, now it is simply LEGAL TENDER which is meaningless (the government at one time must have known the proper usage, it simply decided to change it to "colloquialisms"), interesting isn't it?

I laugh everytime I show you undeniable deception, and you try to turn it into some other issue. Why do you believe that the government should be held to a different standard than the rest of humanity, why should the government be allowed to print a phrase on currency that on the surface purports to be legal language, when in fact it has no meaning whatsoever? I would really like to know the source of your steadfast loyalty in the face of undeniable fraud.

 

[Sahakiel]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
1. The removal of "WILL PAY TO THE BEARER ON DEMAND" while retaining dollar and Note, and distinct likeness on the paper currency was extreme deception.

This assertion has been proven incorrect. Reference previous posts.

2. The phrase "THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE" its absolutely meaningless (as shown above), which is evidence of more deception.

This assertion has also been proven incorrect. Reference previous posts.
The assertion that this is more deception is dependent upon your first assertion, which has been proven false.

3. This decption must be brought to light.

The deception never existed. Reference previous posts for evidence.

I laugh everytime I show you undeniable deception, and you try to turn it into some other issue. Why do you believe that the government should be held to a different standard than the rest of humanity, why should the government be allowed to print a phrase on currency that on the surface purports to be legal language, when in fact it has no meaning whatsoever? I would really like to know the source of your steadfast loyalty in the face of undeniable fraud.

I laugh every time you are shown evidence to the contrary yet simply ignore it. Other issues aside, you have yet to prove your stance in the original post beyond a reasonable doubt, let alone all doubt (the criteria for undeniable). Yet, it has been relatively simple to disprove the foundation of your assertions using little more than five minutes of thought. That is why you have so much trouble convincing anyone.
The government should not be held to a different standard for one reason : A democratic republic should be representive of the people. I can't recall anybody saying otherwise. Your assertion of a double standard hinges on your assertion of the existence of deception. Until you can prove the deception, the double standard does not exist.
This thread has the potential to turn into a meaningful discussion of ethics, law, and economics. That is assuming consistent logic and discussion. Instead, I see a lot of smoke and mirrors coming from one poster who keeps referencing one written source as if it were the Bible. Granted, other minor works are cited, but only once or twice each. Logic and discussion are fine, but smoke and mirrors belong in the circus.
The differences between insanity, genius, and fanaticism are the same as those between knowing, thinking, and believing.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Sahakiel

Originally posted by: Dissipate
1. The removal of "WILL PAY TO THE BEARER ON DEMAND" while retaining dollar and Note, and distinct likeness on the paper currency was extreme deception.

This assertion has been proven incorrect. Reference previous posts.

2. The phrase "THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE" its absolutely meaningless (as shown above), which is evidence of more deception.

This assertion has also been proven incorrect. Reference previous posts.
The assertion that this is more deception is dependent upon your first assertion, which has been proven false.

What language are YOU speaking? I'm sticking with English myself, LEGAL TENDER is grammatically incorrect, rendering it without meaning. Also, another thing my dad pointed out is that the phrase, is just a phrase. It has no period! In order for something to be a complete sentence it must have a period, or other punctuation mark at the end.

3. This decption must be brought to light.

The deception never existed. Reference previous posts for evidence.

Why would someone spend countless hours studying the "money issue" and write a 300+ page book if there was no deception? Hardly anyone knows about this book and I bet the author has barely even broken even on this, he probably had a net loss on it. Furthermore, there are entire scholarly legal works showing how the government has denied the existence of the part of the Constitution which explains exactly what shall be issued as money by the government (gold and silver coin). If you have Lexus Nexus I can give you the link.

I laugh everytime I show you undeniable deception, and you try to turn it into some other issue. Why do you believe that the government should be held to a different standard than the rest of humanity, why should the government be allowed to print a phrase on currency that on the surface purports to be legal language, when in fact it has no meaning whatsoever? I would really like to know the source of your steadfast loyalty in the face of undeniable fraud.

I laugh every time you are shown evidence to the contrary yet simply ignore it. Other issues aside, you have yet to prove your stance in the original post beyond a reasonable doubt, let alone all doubt (the criteria for undeniable). Yet, it has been relatively simple to disprove the foundation of your assertions using little more than five minutes of thought. That is why you have so much trouble convincing anyone.
The government should not be held to a different standard for one reason : A democratic republic should be representive of the people. I can't recall anybody saying otherwise. Your assertion of a double standard hinges on your assertion of the existence of deception. Until you can prove the deception, the double standard does not exist.
This thread has the potential to turn into a meaningful discussion of ethics, law, and economics. That is assuming consistent logic and discussion. Instead, I see a lot of smoke and mirrors coming from one poster who keeps referencing one written source as if it were the Bible. Granted, other minor works are cited, but only once or twice each. Logic and discussion are fine, but smoke and mirrors belong in the circus.
The differences between insanity, genius, and fanaticism are the same as those between knowing, thinking, and believing.

Smoke and mirrors are what the government used to create the monetary sham we have today, it suspsended the constitution, created the federal reserve then when the stage was set it pulled the rug out from under us and removed the backing of its issued Notes. You talk about smoke and mirrors! The history of currency in the U.S. is virtually nothing BUT smoke and mirrors. What I'm trying to show is that the smoke and mirrors are printed right on the tokens you use everyday. Remember the Mobley Milam case I talked about earlier? Run a search on Lexus Nexus and do a cross reference search on it. Dozens of cases and related materials will come up about the "money issue". Read the cases, you will see for yourself, the courts time and time again have defied all logic and merely issued rulings based on what it believes is best for government, regardless of the constitution, regardless of what is right, regardless of what is the truth. You don't want to accept the author's findings on this subject, fine, but don't you dare say for a second that there is absolutely nothing shady about the history of currency in the U.S.

 

[TuxDave]

The fact that you're bringing up issues like needing a period at the end of sentences reminded me of this. Enjoy..

http://www.openbrackets.com/article/512/

 

[MikeyIs4Dcats]

coo coo! coo coo!

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: TuxDave
The fact that you're bringing up issues like needing a period at the end of sentences reminded me of this. Enjoy..

http://www.openbrackets.com/article/512/

Ok, so I'll give it the benefit of the doubt by saying it doesn't need a period. Everything else the author has said still holds true.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: mattg1981
too long to read

Cliff Notes:

• What you believe to be a Federal Reserve Note or dollar is neither a Note or a dollar.

• What you believe to be a dollar bill is not a bill at all.

• What you are really using as money everyday is what is known as a Federal Reserve Token, similar to a token you get at an arcade or amusement park.

Cliff notes: So what.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: mattg1981
too long to read

Cliff Notes:

• What you believe to be a Federal Reserve Note or dollar is neither a Note or a dollar.

• What you believe to be a dollar bill is not a bill at all.

• What you are really using as money everyday is what is known as a Federal Reserve Token, similar to a token you get at an arcade or amusement park.

Cliff notes: So what.

Do you go to an arcade, put FRTs in the machine, get tokens and then go try to "spend" them at a garage sale? Of course not. Tokens are made for special purposes in a closed system (such as an arcade).

 

[Sahakiel]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
What language are YOU speaking? I'm sticking with English myself, LEGAL TENDER is grammatically incorrect, rendering it without meaning. Also, another thing my dad pointed out is that the phrase, is just a phrase. It has no period! In order for something to be a complete sentence it must have a period, or other punctuation mark at the end.

Oh, I'm using what is commonly referred to as "English." It is a type of abstraction commonly called "language" used by many people to transfer information. Might I suggest you study this "language" concept before attempting to use it. You have just demonstrated a severe lack of understanding in the nature and characteristics of "language" with that little tirade over punctuation marks.
Your post above merely highlights the fragility of the basis of your assertions. Several posters have repeatedly destroyed this pillar of your primary assertion. You have yet to refute those proofs, which implies you either ignored them or accepted them as true, rendering your assertion false.

Why would someone spend countless hours studying the "money issue" and write a 300+ page book if there was no deception? Hardly anyone knows about this book and I bet the author has barely even broken even on this, he probably had a net loss on it. Furthermore, there are entire scholarly legal works showing how the government has denied the existence of the part of the Constitution which explains exactly what shall be issued as money by the government (gold and silver coin). If you have Lexus Nexus I can give you the link.

The same reason countless authors write books with hundreds of pages on the existence of aliens. Anybody can publish anything in this country so using profit as the basis for proving validity is inherently flawed. There exists countless books which contain hundreds of pages per volume that never "break even."
The mere existence of a scholarly work does not automatically make the assertion true. There may be some work that supports your assertion, either directly or indirectly. However, there are also scholarly works that support the opposite. Countless scholars throughout the ages have devoted volumes of text in contention of singular issues, some of which have yet to be resolved.

Smoke and mirrors are what the government used to create the monetary sham we have today, it suspsended the constitution, created the federal reserve then when the stage was set it pulled the rug out from under us and removed the backing of its issued Notes. You talk about smoke and mirrors! The history of currency in the U.S. is virtually nothing BUT smoke and mirrors. What I'm trying to show is that the smoke and mirrors are printed right on the tokens you use everyday. Remember the Mobley Milam case I talked about earlier? Run a search on Lexus Nexus and do a cross reference search on it. Dozens of cases and related materials will come up about the "money issue". Read the cases, you will see for yourself, the courts time and time again have defied all logic and merely issued rulings based on what it believes is best for government, regardless of the constitution, regardless of what is right, regardless of what is the truth. You don't want to accept the author's findings on this subject, fine, but don't you dare say for a second that there is absolutely nothing shady about the history of currency in the U.S.

[/quote]

What was that phrase earlier about paintings? What about fanaticism? Perhaps you should think about it a little more.
What you are trying to show is a smoke and mirror act on the part of the government. I don't see anybody denying that. What I do see is a lot of evidence disproving your assertion and very little to prove it. Instead of a logical discussion, one poster is single-handedly turning this thread into a free-for-all akin to Creationsm vs Evolution threads.
Oh, by the way, I dare say that there is nothing shady about the history of currency in the U.S. Well, if you limit the history to the Federal Government's involvement in printing bills. What the government and people do with the money is an entirely different matter. I dare say it because I have not been shown any evidence of foul play.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Who said anything about changing anything? You asked a question, you asked why the phrase is nonsensical, I replied, and I used the book to explain step by step why it is completely void of any legal meaning (or meaning period) whatsoever. Once again you are trying to change this into an issue which is unrelated. Nowhere in the entire book does it even talk about changing paper currency. It is merely
showing evidence of lies and deception.

There has been no deception! How are we a victim of fraud?! The government is not trying to keep us away from something that is justifiably ours! What the hell are you talking about?! Again, do you REALLY think that the powers that be sat around and said.. "Yes!.. We are going to decieve the american public, and leave these words on the money! IT'S INGENIUS!! MUWHAHAHAHA! SUCKERS!!!"

It serves no purpose. We are not being lied to. Everybody knows that you can't turn the money in for metal. Everybody knows the gold standard is long extinct. So how are we being decieved?!

It is just like saying "Well I committed fraud by removing critical legal language from my Notes, so now I'll change it to only refer to Tokens." This action would serve no purpose in the sense that the paper currency and its present day "legal" status would not change, but it would serve the purpose of being semantically and legally correct. However, this is getting away from the issue. I want to restate my assertions:

1. The removal of "WILL PAY TO THE BEARER ON DEMAND" while retaining dollar and Note, and distinct likeness on the paper currency was extreme deception.

Extreme deception?! Get real! For it to be deception, there has to be a marked benefit or gain for a party. What is the benefit? Where is the gain? It serves no purpose!

2. The phrase "THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE" its absolutely meaningless (as shown above), which is evidence of more deception.

3. This decption must be brought to light.

WHY? What purpose would it serve? There is no deception! How are we being decieved? Because the wording on our money is not gramatically correct? WTF? How is that deception? Again, I ask.. so why don't we just remove ALL words from our money. Would you be fscking happy then?! IT DOESEN'T MATTER. NOTHING WOULD CHANGE. IT SERVES NO PURPOSE.

That is it, it would be nice if the government re-labeled the paper currency with the proper terms, but this is not what my assertions are about. Myself and the author merely want people to know what the government did in order to put us on tokens. It did not put us on tokens in an honest manner, it took advantage of ignorance and used deceit. It manipulated words which have specific definitions to its liking, in order to serve its desires to put us on an unbacked monetary system.

Oh please. Show me proof of this deceit, and the effects that it had both on society and the benefit it had to the government. You cannot, because there exists no deception! It's all in your head.

You don't believe me? Look at pictures of U.S. paper currency from history, look at the "evolution" from language clearly stating that gold coin will be paid to the bearer on demand, to merely saying X dollars will be paid to the bearer on demand to simply: X dollars.

Uh. No sh!t it doesen't say that gold coin will be paid to the bearer on demand, because you can't do that anymore!

Also, there are specimens of paper currency from U.S. history that say: A LEGAL TENDER , which was the semi-proper usage, now it is simply LEGAL TENDER which is meaningless (the government at one time must have known the proper usage, it simply decided to change it to "colloquialisms"), interesting isn't it?

No, it isn't interesting, it's meaningless alarmist bullsh!t drivel! For all you or I know, they took "A" off to save a few gallons of ink a year, for fscks sake.

I laugh everytime I show you undeniable deception, and you try to turn it into some other issue. Why do you believe that the government should be held to a different standard than the rest of humanity, why should the government be allowed to print a phrase on currency that on the surface purports to be legal language, when in fact it has no meaning whatsoever? I would really like to know the source of your steadfast loyalty in the face of undeniable fraud.

Please, show me again the consequences of being decieved. What benefit would this huge, massive deception give the government?! It quite simply makes no sense.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Who said anything about changing anything? You asked a question, you asked why the phrase is nonsensical, I replied, and I used the book to explain step by step why it is completely void of any legal meaning (or meaning period) whatsoever. Once again you are trying to change this into an issue which is unrelated. Nowhere in the entire book does it even talk about changing paper currency. It is merely
showing evidence of lies and deception.

There has been no deception! How are we a victim of fraud?! The government is not trying to keep us away from something that is justifiably ours! What the hell are you talking about?! Again, do you REALLY think that the powers that be sat around and said.. "Yes!.. We are going to decieve the american public, and leave these words on the money! IT'S INGENIUS!! MUWHAHAHAHA! SUCKERS!!!"

It serves no purpose. We are not being lied to. Everybody knows that you can't turn the money in for metal. Everybody knows the gold standard is long extinct. So how are we being decieved?!

It is just like saying "Well I committed fraud by removing critical legal language from my Notes, so now I'll change it to only refer to Tokens." This action would serve no purpose in the sense that the paper currency and its present day "legal" status would not change, but it would serve the purpose of being semantically and legally correct. However, this is getting away from the issue. I want to restate my assertions:

1. The removal of "WILL PAY TO THE BEARER ON DEMAND" while retaining dollar and Note, and distinct likeness on the paper currency was extreme deception.

Extreme deception?! Get real! For it to be deception, there has to be a marked benefit or gain for a party. What is the benefit? Where is the gain? It serves no purpose!

2. The phrase "THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE" its absolutely meaningless (as shown above), which is evidence of more deception.

3. This decption must be brought to light.

WHY? What purpose would it serve? There is no deception! How are we being decieved? Because the wording on our money is not gramatically correct? WTF? How is that deception? Again, I ask.. so why don't we just remove ALL words from our money. Would you be fscking happy then?! IT DOESEN'T MATTER. NOTHING WOULD CHANGE. IT SERVES NO PURPOSE.

That is it, it would be nice if the government re-labeled the paper currency with the proper terms, but this is not what my assertions are about. Myself and the author merely want people to know what the government did in order to put us on tokens. It did not put us on tokens in an honest manner, it took advantage of ignorance and used deceit. It manipulated words which have specific definitions to its liking, in order to serve its desires to put us on an unbacked monetary system.

Oh please. Show me proof of this deceit, and the effects that it had both on society and the benefit it had to the government. You cannot, because there exists no deception! It's all in your head.

You don't believe me? Look at pictures of U.S. paper currency from history, look at the "evolution" from language clearly stating that gold coin will be paid to the bearer on demand, to merely saying X dollars will be paid to the bearer on demand to simply: X dollars.

Uh. No sh!t it doesen't say that gold coin will be paid to the bearer on demand, because you can't do that anymore!

Also, there are specimens of paper currency from U.S. history that say: A LEGAL TENDER , which was the semi-proper usage, now it is simply LEGAL TENDER which is meaningless (the government at one time must have known the proper usage, it simply decided to change it to "colloquialisms"), interesting isn't it?

No, it isn't interesting, it's meaningless alarmist bullsh!t drivel! For all you or I know, they took "A" off to save a few gallons of ink a year, for fscks sake.

I laugh everytime I show you undeniable deception, and you try to turn it into some other issue. Why do you believe that the government should be held to a different standard than the rest of humanity, why should the government be allowed to print a phrase on currency that on the surface purports to be legal language, when in fact it has no meaning whatsoever? I would really like to know the source of your steadfast loyalty in the face of undeniable fraud.

Please, show me again the consequences of being decieved. What benefit would this huge, massive deception give the government?! It quite simply makes no sense.

Ok, so you admit the phrase regarding legal tender (sic) is gibberish. I already explained the motive which is crystal clear and well documented: inflation. Leaving off the 'A' in order to save a few gallons of ink every year? PAH-lese, that is about the most inane thing I have heard in quite awhile. This doesn't make sense to you because:

A. You are obviously in love with the government, for whatever reason, perhaps you work for it.

B. You probably weren't around when the government removed the critical language relating to redemption.

C. You probably didn't live through the hyperinflation of the '70s.

D. You just can't stand the thought that your precious "money" is not so regal and or "legal" after all, with meaningless phrases, mislabels all over it.

E. You believe that just because the government has officials elected to public office, those officials always act in the nation's best interest and cannot POSSIBLY be manipulated by someone behind the scenes.

F. You cannot see fraud in the government's actions because you just cannot bring yourself to believe that the government could/would do such a thing, this relates to E. In other words you have blinders on

G. You have probably been using FRTs all your life and have never known any other kind of currency. This weakens your ability to be open minded about the subject.

However, inspite of this you are making progress because I have noticed that:

A. You have recognized that what you thought were Notes are really just tokens.

B. You have recognized that "THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER..." is gibberish.

C. You are aware that the government attempted to change the definition of the word: "dollar" to something entirely different from what it had been for hundreds of years.

D. You are now aware of the government's deception (you are aware but in denial).

Therefore, instead of arguing in circles, I suggest that you get the book and see for yourself. Its arguments are logically infallible, I cannot find almost anything in it that doesn't make sense.

I realize that currency is a topic that is very rarely discussed. Everyone just accepts currency as-is, just like they accept that gravity pulls things down and so on. This thread is a testament to what happens to someone who questions our currency, it is almost as if I have questioned God or something. The insults, the badgering, the harping. Enough abuse to make someone sick, but fortunately it does not bother me. However, the attitude that government currency is created by an act of God is a VERY dangerous attitude, and the government took advantage of its prevalence amongst the common man. I just hope that you realize that just accepting government currency just because it is from the government is a dangerous thing. Fraud by an "official" entity is still fraud, even though the government has completely shielded itself from lawsuits relating to fraud.