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

[Sahakiel]

Good example of ignoring evidence and throwing up smoke and mirrors by Dissipate:

Originally posted by: Dissipate
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.

 

[OS]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Eli
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.

posted 4/23/04 by the above dumbass (link)

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Looks like you have already started committing one of these. Attack my arguments, not me or else your arguments will be rubbish.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Eli
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.

posted 4/23/04 by the above dumbass (link)

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Looks like you have already started committing one of these. Attack my arguments, not me or else your arguments will be rubbish.

I'm not attacking Eli, I'm making assertions based on empirical evidence as to why this doesn't make sense to him. Although, my comment about being in love with the government was admittedly, slightly "over the top", his staunch pseudo-defenses of it makes me believe he is connected in some way.

 

[OS]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
I'm not attacking Eli, I'm making assertions based on empirical evidence as to why this doesn't make sense to him. Although, my comment about being in love with the government was admittedly, slightly "over the top", his staunch pseudo-defenses of it makes me believe he is connected in some way.

Maybe you should just give up, no one really cares anyways. Maybe you should go tell your butt buddies instead.

 

[Eli]

I'm in bed with the government? Hahahaha, what a crock of sh!t. I'm probably the most anti-governmental guy I know, but it sure as hell isn't for any of these absolutely insane reasons you're spewing!

I love a good conspiracy theory, but where the hell is the conspiracy?! What are they conspiring to cheat us out of? Nothing! The whole damn issue is, for the eleventybillionth time, POINTLESS.

I imagine if I read the book it may be a little more clear, but come on... you're basing your whole argument on the English language, which is pretty damn subjective in the first place.

Our money could say "This is a meaningless piece of paper that is arbitrarily assigned value." and I would care less, because it wouldn't effect me or anybody else in any way.

You're basically accusing the government of improper English. It has no implications in the real world.

I see you've brought up inflation again. As I've said, inflation is a necessary evil. Would you rather have delfation? I will say it again for one last time. You are not an economist. You do not understand, fully, our economy just by reading this one book. I suggest you make friends with a nice, young, open minded Econ professor and bring up your ideas to him. If he didn't laugh you out of the room, maybe you will actually learn something.

I'm not blindly saying they're right and you're wrong. I have seen no evidence that you're right, other than the stupid grammar stuff, which doesen't even matter.

Show me something that effects me in the real world, and maybe I'll start paying attention.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: Dissipate
I'm not attacking Eli, I'm making assertions based on empirical evidence as to why this doesn't make sense to him. Although, my comment about being in love with the government was admittedly, slightly "over the top", his staunch pseudo-defenses of it makes me believe he is connected in some way.

Maybe you should just give up, no one really cares anyways. Maybe you should go tell your butt buddies instead.

Dissipate... we all understand what you're trying to say. But the fact remains is that it's nothing new to any of us. What we see your argument as is an argument of logistics. A proper usage of words, etc... what brings the ugly in all of us is when you conclude that the gov't is therefore maliciously decieving everyone. That is when this debate becomes irrelevant. Now... what would be interesting is if you ignore all the logistics and stay with the issue that we're all concerned with. What happens IF we have our money backed by some other material. Then you're entering an economical debate, which is a little more intellectual than a play of words.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: Dissipate
I'm not attacking Eli, I'm making assertions based on empirical evidence as to why this doesn't make sense to him. Although, my comment about being in love with the government was admittedly, slightly "over the top", his staunch pseudo-defenses of it makes me believe he is connected in some way.

Maybe you should just give up, no one really cares anyways. Maybe you should go tell your butt buddies instead.

Excuse me? Is there something I have done to warrent this slander? Please, if you cannot contain yourself, exit the thread.

 

[datalink7]

Well, I didn't read the whole thread, but I don't see what the problem is. So we can't exchange dollars for gold. Why would we want to? The value of gold is completely arbitrary. To me, it is next to worthless. I don't want it.

We have decided that little green pieces of paper are worth something, and so they are. It is the same process for gold. People decided it was worth something, and so it was. Why can't these little pices of green paper be worth more than gold?

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: datalink7
Well, I didn't read the whole thread, but I don't see what the problem is. So we can't exchange dollars for gold. Why would we want to? The value of gold is completely arbitrary. To me, it is next to worthless. I don't want it.

We have decided that little green pieces of paper are worth something, and so they are. It is the same process for gold. People decided it was worth something, and so it was. Why can't these little pices of green paper be worth more than gold?

That isn't the issue.

I guess the issue is that our money isn't gramatically correct, and that our bills are technically "tokens", not "notes".

Shrug. I could care less, along with everybody else on the planet, except Dissipate and the author of this book.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Eli
I'm in bed with the government? Hahahaha, what a crock of sh!t. I'm probably the most anti-governmental guy I know, but it sure as hell isn't for any of these absolutely insane reasons you're spewing!

I love a good conspiracy theory, but where the hell is the conspiracy?! What are they conspiring to cheat us out of? Nothing! The whole damn issue is, for the eleventybillionth time, POINTLESS.

I imagine if I read the book it may be a little more clear, but come on... you're basing your whole argument on the English language, which is pretty damn subjective in the first place.

Our money could say "This is a meaningless piece of paper that is arbitrarily assigned value." and I would care less, because it wouldn't effect me or anybody else in any way.

The government obviously disagrees with you there.

You're basically accusing the government of improper English. It has no implications in the real world.

I see you've brought up inflation again. As I've said, inflation is a necessary evil. Would you rather have delfation? I will say it again for one last time. You are not an economist. You do not understand, fully, our economy just by reading this one book. I suggest you make friends with a nice, young, open minded Econ professor and bring up your ideas to him. If he didn't laugh you out of the room, maybe you will actually learn something.

Your question is a logical fallacy called false dilemma, for you are ignoring the third alternative which is 0 inflation. What I find ironic is that you accuse me of using a subjective base for my arguments, namely English, then you turn around and tell me to learn about another SUBJECTIVE field, Economics. Economics is highly subjective, it is what is known as a social science. I could find a multitude of economists who claim that inflation is necesssary (as you do), and many others who will claim the opposite, that inflation is very bad. In fact, there are economists who claim that deflation IS better than inflation, for your information. As I have repeated SO many times, even assuming that the government had everyone's interest at heart in changing the currency, it did so in a deceptive manner. Let's say that inflation IS good for the economy and that the government had to cause inflation or "bad" things would happen. The way it brought about an inflatable currency was NOT on the up and up, for Joe Six Pack was tricked and had no idea what had happened. Deceiving ignorant, regular folk is the opposite of what the government should be doing. Regular people at the time really had no idea what had happened. Yes, there was news about it, but from an account I heard it was small and relatively unknown at the time.

I'm not blindly saying they're right and you're wrong. I have seen no evidence that you're right, other than the stupid grammar stuff, which doesen't even matter.

When it comes to law, billions of FRTs, or lives can hinge on a single word. To say that language and grammar is "stupid" and "unimportant" is to reveal ignorance on your behalf.

Show me something that effects me in the real world, and maybe I'll start paying attention.

This has undoubtedly already affected you in the real world, we would be living in a much different economy had the government not changed to an inflatable currency.

 

[Sahakiel]

Wow, this has got to be a new record. I count at over 15 posts since Dissipate has been challenged with evidence to the contrary and not a single word from Dissipate to refute them.

 

[TuxDave]

Inflation. So let's say we used Gold as our backing. What's stopping the goverment changing the value of gold in dollars? If they suddenly said, an ounce of gold is now worth $20 from $10, we have inflation don't we? (I'm not an economics major so you may have to bear with me).

Oh... and based on what google told me, it said that if we didn't move from the gold standard, the USA would have been broke. Is that a good enough motivation to move off the gold standard?

 

[Raincity]

Shrug. I could care less, along with everybody else on the planet, except Dissipate and the author of this book.

Actually this issue is big among the Freemasonry Illuminati New World Order conspiracy crowd.


Greenspan is the Antichrist.
Nixon was blackmailed by the Freemasons
Kissingerwas part of the Illuminati
Bush Sr is the leader of the New World Order

Desperate people will believe anything, Whats next Dissipate, how IRS filings are optional and not mandatory.

 

[Sahakiel]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
The way it brought about an inflatable currency was NOT on the up and up, for Joe Six Pack was tricked and had no idea what had happened. Deceiving ignorant, regular folk is the opposite of what the government should be doing. Regular people at the time really had no idea what had happened. Yes, there was news about it, but from an account I heard it was small and relatively unknown at the time.

You posted this tidbit of information earlier : hyperinflation occurred after the introduction of the new greenbacks. If that's not the result of an informed public that is one miraculous coincidence.
On the same vein, immediately after the US governement announced it was no longer exchanging dollars for gold, the price of gold skyrocketed.

When it comes to law, billions of FRTs, or lives can hinge on a single word. To say that language and grammar is "stupid" and "unimportant" is to reveal ignorance on your behalf.

Speaking of language and grammar... looks like you could use a few lessons yourself.
At any rate, it is true that languages are important, as they are the only forms of communication between humans. However, the scope is not limited to law and is, in fact, only relevant in small niches of law.
US law is actually open to interpretation; that is what gives the US Constitution its ability to fit the times in which it is used. Only in contract law is the wording a primary concern, and even so there are instances where the wording can be interpreted in multiple ways. Contract lawyers are hired for one task: construct a construct whose wording cannot be interpreted in any way other than the employee's intent. Sometimes, they make mistakes, and that is where your alarmist "...billions of FRTs, or lives can hinge on a single word" comes to play.

This has undoubtedly already affected you in the real world, we would be living in a much different economy had the government not changed to an inflatable currency.

Inflation existed throughout the history of currency; long before the birth of the United States of America. The only difference would be the tying of dollars to the amount of gold actually inside the US vaults. Imagine what happens if a large supply of gold is found, manufactured, stolen, or even traded on the open market. The buying power of a single dollar would fluctuate literally by the second.
Attempting to use such a system would require millions of computer terminals and thousands of light-seconds worth of network cable. Such a large and complex system is prone to hacking and such actions can cause artificial bubbles.
In other words, I'd rather use fiat money. It seems so much more like the lesser of several evils.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: datalink7
Well, I didn't read the whole thread, but I don't see what the problem is. So we can't exchange dollars for gold. Why would we want to? The value of gold is completely arbitrary. To me, it is next to worthless. I don't want it.

We have decided that little green pieces of paper are worth something, and so they are. It is the same process for gold. People decided it was worth something, and so it was. Why can't these little pices of green paper be worth more than gold?

Datalink, I am glad you asked this question. The value of gold is not arbitrary, it is based on a supply and demand in a marketplace, the demand and thusly, the supply is based upon intrinsic value, this is important as you will see below. The value of FRTs (federal reserve tokens) is based on supply and demand as well, although in a different way, since they are a different market (which is easily manipulated).

Now, you say: "Gold has no value to me, what is the difference between gold and FRTs??". Well, intrinsic value is not relative to any one person or entity. Just because it does not have intrinsic value to you or maybe even your friend is not the same as it having no intrinsic value at all. Gold has great intrinsic value to a variety of people in a variety of industries.

The old Federal Reserve Notes themselves have no intrinsic value either, they are just pieces of paper, but the distinct difference is that they could be redeemed on demand for gold or silver, both metals with intrinsic value, this made the value of the Notes be worth at least that of the gold or silver it could be redeemed for. In other words, this made the Notes virtually as good as gold.

FRTs have value, yes, but this value is purely extrinsic, it has no value outside what people extrinsically add to it (the paper itself serves no useful purpose), there is no commodity with extrinsic value backing it, therefore the value of FRTs can be manipulated simply by printing more FRTs. This is why they are tokens, just like the tokens you get at the arcade, and the tokens you use to take the Subway or get on a bus.

You don't think of FRTs as being tokens, for they are tokens that are seemingly special, since they can be exchanged for so many things. However, this goes back to the whole dilemma of manipulation, since they ARE tokens, and nothing else whoever owns the token minting/printing machine can manipulate their value. In a marketplace of commodities of intrinsic value, I would be hard pressed to manipulate the price of a particular commodity, because I cannot own a machine that mines/makes/grows such a commodity that requires no labor.

It all comes down to two things: labor and limited quantity. There is only a limited amount of mineable gold on Earth, this makes it have a limited quantity. Also, labor is involved with its mining, labor that men must perform in a real mine in a real place under real market conditions.

Let us compare this to tokens. Tokens have a potentially unlimited quantity, even if the Bureau of Printing and Engraving ran out of paper, the Fed could just create electronic tokens (which it does every day) to literally no end. The labor involved in this process is so tiny it is virtually nonexistant, for all that must be done is a few keystrokes on a computer can be pressed and BING, 500 Trillion FRTs are created. Just as your local arcade could flood the arcade with so many tokens that no game was ever available to play, they literally became Free Play, causing a shortage of available games.

I hope you can start to see the problem here, and the inherent difference between a value backed currency and tokens.

 

[TuxDave]

Ok, first of all, the fed wouldn't print money like a mofo to destroy the value of the dollar. So you can ignore that argument of printing bazillion dollars for kicks. Anyways.

I dunno, let's say Africa has lots of gold mines. Who knows. If we were on the gold-standard, don't you think that the African countries would have too much power over the price of gold since they control a large supply? Just like diamond, if someone wanted to, they COULD destroy the value of the diamond.

 

[Sahakiel]

Originally posted by: DissipateDatalink, I am glad you asked this question. The value of gold is not arbitrary, it is based on a supply and demand in a marketplace, the demand and thusly, the supply is based upon intrinsic value, this is important as you will see below. The value of FRTs (federal reserve tokens) is based on supply and demand as well, although in a different way, since they are a different market (which is easily manipulated).

I think you forgot the value of modern greenbacks is also dependent upon supply and demand.
The supply is not based upon intrinsic value. The intrinsic value of gold is entirely industrial. You touched upon this, but not in a correct manner. Gold has conductive properties, malleability, brittleness, density, and other intrinsic characteristics. Nothing in the universe has intrinsic value as money. The characteristics of money are all extrinsic.

The old Federal Reserve Notes themselves have no intrinsic value either, they are just pieces of paper, but the distinct difference is that they could be redeemed on demand for gold or silver, both metals with intrinsic value, this made the value of the Notes be worth at least that of the gold or silver it could be redeemed for. In other words, this made the Notes virtually as good as gold.

Paper is paper, and the old Federal Reserve Notes have intrinsic properties that bestow intrinsic value. It just so happens that, like gold, silver, and anything else, said notes had no intrinsic value as money.

FRTs have value, yes, but this value is purely extrinsic, it has no value outside what people extrinsically add to it (the paper itself serves no useful purpose), there is no commodity with extrinsic value backing it, therefore the value of FRTs can be manipulated simply by printing more FRTs. This is why they are tokens, just like the tokens you get at the arcade, and the tokens you use to take the Subway or get on a bus.

Gold is the same in the above paragraph. (Replace printing with mining)

You don't think of FRTs as being tokens, for they are tokens that are seemingly special, since they can be exchanged for so many things. However, this goes back to the whole dilemma of manipulation, since they ARE tokens, and nothing else whoever owns the token minting/printing machine can manipulate their value. In a marketplace of commodities of intrinsic value, I would be hard pressed to manipulate the price of a particular commodity, because I cannot own a machine that mines/makes/grows such a commodity that requires no labor.

It's not like greenbacks are printed using no labor. In this manner, there exists only one fundamental difference between greenbacks and gold or silver: greenbacks are not elements (chemistry).
One CAN manipulate the price of a commodity. It's called cornering the market or holding a monopoly. The only reason it is so difficult to do so is because the US government has anti-trust policies. Otherwise, Standard Oil might still be around with oil rigs in everybody's back yard. DeBeers would be mining everywhere it can if it could only get permission.

It all comes down to two things: labor and limited quantity. There is only a limited amount of mineable gold on Earth, this makes it have a limited quantity. Also, labor is involved with its mining, labor that men must perform in a real mine in a real place under real market conditions.

Once again, printing a greenback requires material and labor. The material is limited and the labor is actually quite extensive.

Let us compare this to tokens. Tokens have a potentially unlimited quantity, even if the Bureau of Printing and Engraving ran out of paper, the Fed could just create electronic tokens (which it does every day) to literally no end. The labor involved in this process is so tiny it is virtually nonexistant, for all that must be done is a few keystrokes on a computer can be pressed and BING, 500 Trillion FRTs are created. Just as your local arcade could flood the arcade with so many tokens that no game was ever available to play, they literally became Free Play, causing a shortage of available games.

Which is no different than the old 19th century banks printing thousands of notes for more gold than they had in their vaults. Even after the institution of the Federal Reserve System, hyperinflation of the type you are describing in your analogy occurred after the end of World War I for the very reason you describe. Too many people spending more money than they had. However, if you think that was bad, look a little closer at Germany during that time.

I hope you can start to see the problem here, and the inherent difference between a value backed currency and tokens.

Personally, I don't seem to have a problem. I think the only one who has a problem is you, but since I can't read minds it's pure speculation on my part.

 

[Sahakiel]

Originally posted by: TuxDaveJust like diamond, if someone wanted to, they COULD destroy the value of the diamond.

DeBeers used to do this on a regular basis at the local level to flatten their competitors. Although, they've been having a bit of trouble in recent years.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Sahakiel

Originally posted by: Dissipate
The way it brought about an inflatable currency was NOT on the up and up, for Joe Six Pack was tricked and had no idea what had happened. Deceiving ignorant, regular folk is the opposite of what the government should be doing. Regular people at the time really had no idea what had happened. Yes, there was news about it, but from an account I heard it was small and relatively unknown at the time.

You posted this tidbit of information earlier : hyperinflation occurred after the introduction of the new greenbacks. If that's not the result of an informed public that is one miraculous coincidence.
On the same vein, immediately after the US governement announced it was no longer exchanging dollars for gold, the price of gold skyrocketed.

When it comes to law, billions of FRTs, or lives can hinge on a single word. To say that language and grammar is "stupid" and "unimportant" is to reveal ignorance on your behalf.

Speaking of language and grammar... looks like you could use a few lessons yourself.
At any rate, it is true that languages are important, as they are the only forms of communication between humans. However, the scope is not limited to law and is, in fact, only relevant in small niches of law.
US law is actually open to interpretation; that is what gives the US Constitution its ability to fit the times in which it is used. Only in contract law is the wording a primary concern, and even so there are instances where the wording can be interpreted in multiple ways. Contract lawyers are hired for one task: construct a construct whose wording cannot be interpreted in any way other than the employee's intent. Sometimes, they make mistakes, and that is where your alarmist "...billions of FRTs, or lives can hinge on a single word" comes to play.

Just because a word is open to interpretation does not mean that it cannot be abused. In the case of U.S. currency the word, Note and dollar were abused to the highest degree possible. Suppose you and I made a contract and the contract said: "I will pay you 1 ounce of pure gold tomorrow.", so tomorrow you present to me the contract and demand your ounce of pure gold and I get out a 1 ounce coin that is only gold plated and give it to you. You would probably claim that I was in breach of contract, but I claim: "No, my definition of pure is 1 karat of gold pure." This is a case of blatant abuse of language and you would probably sue me.

This has undoubtedly already affected you in the real world, we would be living in a much different economy had the government not changed to an inflatable currency.

Inflation existed throughout the history of currency; long before the birth of the United States of America. The only difference would be the tying of dollars to the amount of gold actually inside the US vaults. Imagine what happens if a large supply of gold is found, manufactured, stolen, or even traded on the open market. The buying power of a single dollar would fluctuate literally by the second.
Attempting to use such a system would require millions of computer terminals and thousands of light-seconds worth of network cable. Such a large and complex system is prone to hacking and such actions can cause artificial bubbles.

There are HUGE veins of gold in Russia right now just waiting to be mined. Why aren't they being mined? Most likely because the price of gold is not high enough for it to be worthwhile to mine. You see it doesn't matter how much gold is found in the Earth, it matters if it is worthwhile to mine it. In order to increase the supply there must be a demand, and to fulfill that demand requires labor. 500 tons of gold is not going to leap out of the ground tomorrow. I don't know what you mean by "manufactured", gold can only be "manufactured" in one way I know of: super colliding superconductors, currently an EXTREMELY expensive technology, now and many years to come. As for gold being stolen, I don't know what you mean by that, an enormous amount of gold would have to be stolen and dumped on the market for it to have an effect. As for traded, that does affect the price, but gold has historically been relatively non-volatile.

In other words, I'd rather use fiat money. It seems so much more like the lesser of several evils.

I would like to take the opportunity to bring up the concept of:

seign·ior·age ( P ) Pronunciation Key (snyr-j)
n.
Revenue or a profit taken from the minting of coins, usually the difference between the value of the bullion used and the face value of the coin.

Now today seigniorage also includes paper currency, it is the value derived from the amount it takes to print the tokens and the amount that they can be exchanged for. As it is now the government is receiving huge sums of value from seigniorage, even when there is no inflation, for even with 0 inflation the government would still receive seigniorage from the currency it circulates to keep up with the growth of the economy. Why should the government get to commit seigniorage? That is value out of your paycheck. That is taxation without representation, there is nothing in the tax code relating to seigniorage, and yet it hits everyone who is not the first receivers of the newly printed currency (a huge portion of the population).

 

[TuxDave]

You tell him Sahakiel!!! :beer:

lol...

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: datalink7
Well, I didn't read the whole thread, but I don't see what the problem is. So we can't exchange dollars for gold. Why would we want to? The value of gold is completely arbitrary. To me, it is next to worthless. I don't want it.

We have decided that little green pieces of paper are worth something, and so they are. It is the same process for gold. People decided it was worth something, and so it was. Why can't these little pices of green paper be worth more than gold?

Datalink, I am glad you asked this question. The value of gold is not arbitrary, it is based on a supply and demand in a marketplace, the demand and thusly, the supply is based upon intrinsic value, this is important as you will see below. The value of FRTs (federal reserve tokens) is based on supply and demand as well, although in a different way, since they are a different market (which is easily manipulated).

Now, you say: "Gold has no value to me, what is the difference between gold and FRTs??". Well, intrinsic value is not relative to any one person or entity. Just because it does not have intrinsic value to you or maybe even your friend is not the same as it having no intrinsic value at all. Gold has great intrinsic value to a variety of people in a variety of industries.

The old Federal Reserve Notes themselves have no intrinsic value either, they are just pieces of paper, but the distinct difference is that they could be redeemed on demand for gold or silver, both metals with intrinsic value, this made the value of the Notes be worth at least that of the gold or silver it could be redeemed for. In other words, this made the Notes virtually as good as gold.

FRTs have value, yes, but this value is purely extrinsic, it has no value outside what people extrinsically add to it (the paper itself serves no useful purpose), there is no commodity with extrinsic value backing it, therefore the value of FRTs can be manipulated simply by printing more FRTs. This is why they are tokens, just like the tokens you get at the arcade, and the tokens you use to take the Subway or get on a bus.

You don't think of FRTs as being tokens, for they are tokens that are seemingly special, since they can be exchanged for so many things. However, this goes back to the whole dilemma of manipulation, since they ARE tokens, and nothing else whoever owns the token minting/printing machine can manipulate their value. In a marketplace of commodities of intrinsic value, I would be hard pressed to manipulate the price of a particular commodity, because I cannot own a machine that mines/makes/grows such a commodity that requires no labor.

It all comes down to two things: labor and limited quantity. There is only a limited amount of mineable gold on Earth, this makes it have a limited quantity. Also, labor is involved with its mining, labor that men must perform in a real mine in a real place under real market conditions.

Let us compare this to tokens. Tokens have a potentially unlimited quantity, even if the Bureau of Printing and Engraving ran out of paper, the Fed could just create electronic tokens (which it does every day) to literally no end. The labor involved in this process is so tiny it is virtually nonexistant, for all that must be done is a few keystrokes on a computer can be pressed and BING, 500 Trillion FRTs are created. Just as your local arcade could flood the arcade with so many tokens that no game was ever available to play, they literally became Free Play, causing a shortage of available games.

I hope you can start to see the problem here, and the inherent difference between a value backed currency and tokens.

I think I'm beginning to understand the argument, at least. I understand everything you've just said.

So what does this mean? I mean.. What can we do about it, other than wait for some catastrophic event or something?

I guess I just don't understand what the big deal is. Yeah, so we(the feds) have control over our own FRT's.. why is that a bad thing? Isn't it better for us to be in control of it than, for example, gold mining companies?

Can you please explain to me why exactly the wording on the bills is alarming? I mean.. what does it mean to me? What does it mean that it says note instead of token? You're saying that they left it say "note" because they did not want the public to realize that we moved to a different money scheme?

That's the whole problem I have with it. It's no secret that the feds control our money. So if it's not a secret, how is it a deception? Since it's so painfully obvious that it says note instead of token, and if this is truely such a big deal, why isn't every educated person in the country crying out fowl?

I'm trying to understand, not flame or anything.. so.. heh.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Sahakiel

Originally posted by: DissipateDatalink, I am glad you asked this question. The value of gold is not arbitrary, it is based on a supply and demand in a marketplace, the demand and thusly, the supply is based upon intrinsic value, this is important as you will see below. The value of FRTs (federal reserve tokens) is based on supply and demand as well, although in a different way, since they are a different market (which is easily manipulated).

I think you forgot the value of modern greenbacks is also dependent upon supply and demand.
The supply is not based upon intrinsic value. The intrinsic value of gold is entirely industrial. You touched upon this, but not in a correct manner. Gold has conductive properties, malleability, brittleness, density, and other intrinsic characteristics. Nothing in the universe has intrinsic value as money. The characteristics of money are all extrinsic.

HuH? I specifically said that the value of tokens is based on supply and demand as well, just in different ways. If gold can be used in industry that is intrinsic value, you could take that gold Eagle out of your pocket and use it to plate a wire for instance. There is a market for the substance gold itself, whether it is used as money or to plate a wire. there is arguably a market for paper, but the paper that FRTs are printed on has virtually insignifcant intrinsic value.

The old Federal Reserve Notes themselves have no intrinsic value either, they are just pieces of paper, but the distinct difference is that they could be redeemed on demand for gold or silver, both metals with intrinsic value, this made the value of the Notes be worth at least that of the gold or silver it could be redeemed for. In other words, this made the Notes virtually as good as gold.

Paper is paper, and the old Federal Reserve Notes have intrinsic properties that bestow intrinsic value. It just so happens that, like gold, silver, and anything else, said notes had no intrinsic value as money.

See below.

FRTs have value, yes, but this value is purely extrinsic, it has no value outside what people extrinsically add to it (the paper itself serves no useful purpose), there is no commodity with extrinsic value backing it, therefore the value of FRTs can be manipulated simply by printing more FRTs. This is why they are tokens, just like the tokens you get at the arcade, and the tokens you use to take the Subway or get on a bus.

Gold is the same in the above paragraph. (Replace printing with mining)

You don't think of FRTs as being tokens, for they are tokens that are seemingly special, since they can be exchanged for so many things. However, this goes back to the whole dilemma of manipulation, since they ARE tokens, and nothing else whoever owns the token minting/printing machine can manipulate their value. In a marketplace of commodities of intrinsic value, I would be hard pressed to manipulate the price of a particular commodity, because I cannot own a machine that mines/makes/grows such a commodity that requires no labor.

It's not like greenbacks are printed using no labor. In this manner, there exists only one fundamental difference between greenbacks and gold or silver: greenbacks are not elements (chemistry).
One CAN manipulate the price of a commodity. It's called cornering the market or holding a monopoly. The only reason it is so difficult to do so is because the US government has anti-trust policies. Otherwise, Standard Oil might still be around with oil rigs in everybody's back yard. DeBeers would be mining everywhere it can if it could only get permission.

It costs the BPE 4 cents to print $100 FRTs, your arguments just keep getting weaker. Furthermore, you conveniently forgot that FRTs have non-physical form: computerized in which virtually 0 labor is invoked by their creation. The Hunt brothers did try to corner the silver market at one time, but they failed miserably and lost billions, I don't believe the government even tried to stop them. Commodities are what are known as PRICE TAKERS markets, which means that no single entity can significantly affect their price. The price of gold can be affected by the government since it owns so much, but this would cease being the case if gold was once again used as a currency for then there would be too much in circulation.

It all comes down to two things: labor and limited quantity. There is only a limited amount of mineable gold on Earth, this makes it have a limited quantity. Also, labor is involved with its mining, labor that men must perform in a real mine in a real place under real market conditions.

Once again, printing a greenback requires material and labor. The material is limited and the labor is actually quite extensive.

Let us compare this to tokens. Tokens have a potentially unlimited quantity, even if the Bureau of Printing and Engraving ran out of paper, the Fed could just create electronic tokens (which it does every day) to literally no end. The labor involved in this process is so tiny it is virtually nonexistant, for all that must be done is a few keystrokes on a computer can be pressed and BING, 500 Trillion FRTs are created. Just as your local arcade could flood the arcade with so many tokens that no game was ever available to play, they literally became Free Play, causing a shortage of available games.

Which is no different than the old 19th century banks printing thousands of notes for more gold than they had in their vaults. Even after the institution of the Federal Reserve System, hyperinflation of the type you are describing in your analogy occurred after the end of World War I for the very reason you describe. Too many people spending more money than they had. However, if you think that was bad, look a little closer at Germany during that time.

Regardless of what happened in the 19th century, legitimate gold warehouses can and do exist today: e-gold, e-bullion, pecunix and goldmoney just to name a few. It is known that all currency on these sites 100% backed by gold, therefore the value of said currency mirrors the price of gold and can be spent on many third party sites.

I hope you can start to see the problem here, and the inherent difference between a value backed currency and tokens.

Personally, I don't seem to have a problem. I think the only one who has a problem is you, but since I can't read minds it's pure speculation on my part.

See seigniorage, in other post.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Regardless of what happened in the 19th century, legitimate gold warehouses can and do exist today: e-gold, e-bullion, pecunix and goldmoney just to name a few. It is known that all currency on these sites 100% backed by gold, therefore the value of said currency mirrors the price of gold and can be spent on many third party sites.

[/quote]

Why is that a good thing?????

I don't want the value of my money to be based on the value of gold. I don't want the value of my money to be based on any tangible physical object that can be manipulated.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Regardless of what happened in the 19th century, legitimate gold warehouses can and do exist today: e-gold, e-bullion, pecunix and goldmoney just to name a few. It is known that all currency on these sites 100% backed by gold, therefore the value of said currency mirrors the price of gold and can be spent on many third party sites.

Why is that a good thing?????

I don't want the value of my money to be based on the value of gold. I don't want the value of my money to be based on any tangible physical object that can be manipulated.[/quote]

The value of FRTs is manipulated every day, why are you willing to trade one manipulation for another? The price of gold is subject to market forces just like anything else. I suppose you shouldn't own a house because the value of your house could be "manipulated". Face it, the exchange value of all the objects around you is dependent on what others will pay for it. It just so happens that gold has been something people will pay for, and it has been that way for thousands of years. Any manipulation of the price of gold would be temporary and its effects, while possibly noticeable would be limited.

 

[sonambulo]

i cant believe you dumbsh!ts are still arguing with the op. just let him choke on his solid gold dildo and die. seriously.

WTF!??!?!