• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Monopoly Men

TruthSeeker1234 said:
LOL. You're trying to convince us that I can redeem dollars for gold certificates? And can I redeem gold certificates for gold? Please tell me how to do this.
Click to expand...
I said that? Show me where.

We all know you can't even buy a vowel to guess at a clue, TS.

You're ignorant to all fields.
 
CurtC said:
You're saying that there is no market demand for little slips of paper, printed on linen cloth, with portraits of Ben Franklin on them, that are issued by the US government? Since you place no value on them, I'll volunteer to take any that you get.
Click to expand...

We do not have a free market. On a free market, gold is money. There is no demand for little slips of paper. For a long time, possessing monetary gold was a felony. People had no choice but to use paper money.


[Fractional Reserve Banking] ain't fraudulent if the parties involved know what they're getting.
Click to expand...

That's true. On the market, there would likely be fractional reserve banks, which would pay interest, and 100% reserve banks, which would charge a fee. People could choose. Historically, the problem was fraudulent issuance of notes not backed by gold, which led to bank runs in which people showed up to get their own money, which was not there. Bankers loved fractional reserve banking, because it is a license to print money. Institutionalizing the practice was the goal of central banking.

I agree that our monetary policy is a house of cards, and relies on the trust placed on the Fed, but the fact is that it's worked really well for almost a century. Much better than how the old way worked.
Click to expand...

It certainly works well for the bankers, the government, government contractors. It works to the disadvantage of regular folks. The total cost in living standard is truly incalculable, but I don't think it's unreasonable to think that living standards would be twice as high today, but for government intervention into the market. Could be much more than that even.

Nonsense - the amount of money actually printed is inconsequential. You may learn something by reading this article:
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_163.html
Click to expand...

By "printing money" I mean the inflation of the money supply, which is mostly accomplished by the issuance of new debt. This is, in fact, the creation of new and additional money "out of thin air".

You may learn something by reading this treatise:

http://www.mises.org/money.asp
 
Magic 8 Ball said:
Thank you Gravy. I never know what to believe these days.
Click to expand...

Never accept a CT video as fact. Be responsible and research for yourself. If a video implied that the government had some sort of massive illegal conspiracy going on, would you really just take the word of a youtube video? CT videos are designed to deceive. Don't be like TS1234 and just soak up every single conspiracy that you come across regardless of facts.
 
Oh and TS1234, are you suggesting that people should still be using gold as currency?
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
By "printing money" I mean the inflation of the money supply, which is mostly accomplished by the issuance of new debt. This is, in fact, the creation of new and additional money "out of thin air".
Click to expand...
You say that like it's a bad thing. Who decides when to increase the money supply? You and I do, whenever we take out a loan.
 
Gravy said:
I said [U.S. dollars were redeemable]? Show me where.
Click to expand...

As I mentioned above, U.S. currency is backed by government securities and gold certificates.
Click to expand...

O.K. Perhaps you could explain what you mean by "backed by". Also what do you mean by "gold certificate"?

Methinks this is typical Orwellian redefinition. Go ahead Gravy. Explain how U.S. dollars are backed by anything whatsoever.
 
Quad4_72 said:
Oh and TS1234, are you suggesting that people should still be using gold as currency?
Click to expand...

People should be free to use whatever money they judge is the best functioning. Being forced to use unbacked paper money (as we were forced) is akin to being forced to use rocks to pound in nails. It works, it's just not nearly as effective as using hammers. If hammers give way to nail guns, so be it.

The international gold standard did not arise because some king or pope decided it. No. It arose spontaneously, after centuries of evolution. Do you understand natural selection?

If a better functioning money is discovered, the market will embrace it. On the market, there is nothing wrong with money substitutes, like paper money, or computer digits on a magnetic strip. It's just that the substitutes must be redeemable. On the market, they would never ever function as money without being redeemable in a commodity of real value.

The only way for fiat money to function is to first establish a commodity money, then forcibly take over and monopolize the production of money, as was done.

Monopolies - bad. Competition - good.
 
Gravy said:
No. I thought that was a comedy film. :D
Click to expand...


The plot is that these guys found a real alien autopsy film, and get $30,000 off a guy obsessed with crop circles to purchase it.

However in the interim the film has degraded to the point of destruction, so they and their friends get together and fake a new alien autopsy film.

-Gumboot
 
If a better functioning money is discovered, the market will embrace it. On the market, there is nothing wrong with money substitutes, like paper money, or computer digits on a magnetic strip. It's just that the substitutes must be redeemable. On the market, they would never ever function as money without being redeemable in a commodity of real value.

The only way for fiat money to function is to first establish a commodity money, then forcibly take over and monopolize the production of money, as was done.
Click to expand...

Your economics "theory" flies in the face of modernly held notions. When are you going to be publishing this groundbreaking paper?
 
A W Smith said:
It may help to get your head out of your arse once in awhile.
here lets make it simple for you and in plain english. how the system works.
http://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/pleng/default.html
Click to expand...

I've yet to meet a single federal-reserve CTer who could adequately explain how, for instance, new money is brought into circulation. Most think the federal reserve prints the money, and they bring it in a truck to your local bank and give it to them. And since the same people own both, they are giving money to themselves! Conspiracy!
 
Anti-sophist said:
Your economics "theory" flies in the face of modernly held notions. When are you going to be publishing this groundbreaking paper?
Click to expand...

Ace here is a disciple of the Austrian School theory of economics.

Under "criticism" in the Wiki article:
One criticism of the Austrian school is its rejection of the scientific method and empirical testing in favor of supposedly self-evident axioms and logical reasoning.
Click to expand...

Yep, sounds like Ace.
 
In practical terms, there are all sorts of choices for what form of currency to use. Besides cash, you can get debit cards or credit lines at any bank you choose including PayPal. You can buy traveller's checks or money orders or Toys R Us gift cards or Disney Dollars. You can convert your money into (buy) foreign currency, stocks, bonds, gold, wheat futures, lottery tickets, houses, or rare stamps. "Dollars" are just the unit of measure you use to talk about how much any of these things are worth as currency. Money on deposit at Citizens Bank is a debt that Citizens Bank owes you on demand, while money on deposit at Bank of America is debt that Bank of America owes you on demand. The only thing they have in common is they're both measured in dollars.

Now, it's true that in order to pay certain of your debts, you have to convert (sell) whatever form of currency you're holding back into dollars, so that the person you're paying can tell how much currency you're paying them. This is up to the creditor: if it's okay with them to be paid in Venitian Guilders and you have some on hand, then nothing is stopping either of you from making the transaction that way. However, most merchants and creditors will, for their own convenience, require payment in more conventional forms, and they have the legal right to refuse to sell to you or not accept your payment against your debt if you don't comply with that. This might seem like a terrible abridgement of your rights, but if someone owed you money (say, a store that sold you a product which you returned because it was defective, or your employer on payday), would you want to be forced to accept (re)payment in rare stamps or live chickens or Disney Dollars if that's what they felt like offering you, or do you enjoy having the right to demand it in something more directly and reliably measureable in dollars, such as a check, cash, money order, or PayPal transfer?

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
O.K. Perhaps you could explain what you mean by "backed by". Also what do you mean by "gold certificate"?

Methinks this is typical Orwellian redefinition. Go ahead Gravy. Explain how U.S. dollars are backed by anything whatsoever.
Click to expand...
I suggest that you look up the definition of collateral. You'll need to know that if you ever apply for a loan.
 
Gravy said:
I suggest that you look up the definition of collateral. You'll need to know that if you ever apply for a loan.
Click to expand...

You're the one who said U.S. dollars were "backed by government securities and gold certificates".

OK. I've got a stack of "Ace Baker's Gold Certificates". They are just as redeemable as any paper held "as collateral" against U.S. dollars. Which is to say, they are not redeemable for anything.

Will you lend me money based on this collateral?
 
Myriad said:
In practical terms, there are all sorts of choices for what form of currency to use. Besides cash, you can get debit cards or credit lines at any bank you choose including PayPal. You can buy traveller's checks or money orders or Toys R Us gift cards or Disney Dollars. You can convert your money into (buy) foreign currency, stocks, bonds, gold, wheat futures, lottery tickets, houses, or rare stamps. "Dollars" are just the unit of measure you use to talk about how much any of these things are worth as currency. Money on deposit at Citizens Bank is a debt that Citizens Bank owes you on demand, while money on deposit at Bank of America is debt that Bank of America owes you on demand. The only thing they have in common is they're both measured in dollars.

Now, it's true that in order to pay certain of your debts, you have to convert (sell) whatever form of currency you're holding back into dollars, so that the person you're paying can tell how much currency you're paying them. This is up to the creditor: if it's okay with them to be paid in Venitian Guilders and you have some on hand, then nothing is stopping either of you from making the transaction that way. However, most merchants and creditors will, for their own convenience, require payment in more conventional forms, and they have the legal right to refuse to sell to you or not accept your payment against your debt if you don't comply with that. This might seem like a terrible abridgement of your rights, but if someone owed you money (say, a store that sold you a product which you returned because it was defective, or your employer on payday), would you want to be forced to accept (re)payment in rare stamps or live chickens or Disney Dollars if that's what they felt like offering you, or do you enjoy having the right to demand it in something more directly and reliably measureable in dollars, such as a check, cash, money order, or PayPal transfer?

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

Sorry, the choices are forced choices. In 1913 Wilson's thugs made it a felony to refuse acceptance of paper dollars. In 1933 FDR's thugs made it a felony to posses monetary gold. In 1971 Nixon closed the gold window. Once the scam was completed and money was completely monopolized and divorced from gold, it was safe for the thugs to allow possession of gold again, mainly because they had most of it.

To this day, if I refuse to accept U.S. dollars in payment of debt, I can be charged with a felony.

Choice?

Money is essential to an economy. Without money, society could do no better than primitive agriculture, if that. A free market would allow people to choose the best functioning money. Instead, today we have a choice between a crappy, devalued, unbacked fiat money . . . or no money at all.

Of course, the money system works very, very well for some people.

Myriad, are you a net tax payer, or a net tax consumer?
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Sorry, the choices are forced choices...

To this day, if I refuse to accept U.S. dollars in payment of debt, I can be charged with a felony.

Choice?
Click to expand...

That's right. (Though one quibble first: you can now buy as much gold as you want. Which might give you some collateral to back those Ace Baker Certificates.)

Okay, back to... that's right. Not choice, and for good reason. When you live in a civilized society in which you interact with other people, your choices are restricted. For example, you cannot choose your own preferred time to drive through an intersection controlled by a traffic signal. You must wait until the light is green.

You want more choice, but would you be willing to live with the consequences of others having that same choice? For instance...

1. You agree to do a job requiring two weeks of your time, in return for a certain wage. When payday comes, your employer offers to pay you the equivalent value of your agreed wage in bricks. He shows you evidence that the fair market price of those bricks equals the agreed upon wage. Should you have any right to demand payment in a more convenient form, or is his right to choose his preferred way of paying his debt to you paramount?

2. You hire a person to work for two weeks, in return for a certain wage. When payday comes, your employee says he prefers to be paid in bricks. He shows you evidence that the fair market price of the number of bricks he's asking for equals the agreed upon wage. Should you have the right to settle the debt in cash rather than provide him with bricks, or is his right to choose how you pay your debt to him paramount?

For myself, I'd much prefer (if I were the employee) to ask the employer to sell his own damn bricks and give me the cash, and (if I were the employer) to pay cash and let the guy go buy bricks with it. And I appreciate having the law back me up in this.

If these examples seem like a minor issue, I suggest you look up "scrip," "company store," and "wage slavery" from a reliable U.S. history source, to see why they are not.

Myriad, are you a net tax payer, or a net tax consumer?
Click to expand...

As a self-employed person I am a net tax payer, by an enormous margin. Last time I checked I was in the top one percentile of Americans in the percentage of my net income paid as Federal taxes. Of course, this makes sense as I am also exremely fortunate in being healthy, having talents and experience that allow me to earn a good income, and enjoying the freedom of being self-employed. I have a twin brother, who by virtue of having been born with severe mental and physical handicaps, is a net tax consumer, by an enormous margin. Between the two of us it probably balances out reasonably well, but this is just coincidence, not arranged that way. (If I were severely handicapped too, we'd both get benefits derived from other people's taxes.) Why do you ask?

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Myriad said:
1. You agree to do a job requiring two weeks of your time, in return for a certain wage. When payday comes, your employer offers to pay you the equivalent value of your agreed wage in bricks. He shows you evidence that the fair market price of those bricks equals the agreed upon wage. Should you have any right to demand payment in a more convenient form, or is his right to choose his preferred way of paying his debt to you paramount?

2. You hire a person to work for two weeks, in return for a certain wage. When payday comes, your employee says he prefers to be paid in bricks. He shows you evidence that the fair market price of the number of bricks he's asking for equals the agreed upon wage. Should you have the right to settle the debt in cash rather than provide him with bricks, or is his right to choose how you pay your debt to him paramount?
Click to expand...
Or, to address Ace's example (refuse to accept dollars in payment of debt):

3. You agree to do a job requiring two weeks of your time, in return for a certain wage. When payday comes, your employer offers to pay you the equivalent value of your agreed wage in U.S. dollars. You refuse, demanding to be paid in bricks. You show him evidence that the fair market price of those bricks equals the agreed upon wage. Should he have any right to settle the debt in a more convenient form, or is your right to choose your preferred way of his paying his debt to you paramount?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom