This thread sponsored by:
tomozope: bbnet:and elimination of legal tender laws would only reinforce their monopoly, right? It wouldn't affect anything at all ...
bbnet:and elimination of legal tender laws would only reinforce their monopoly, right?
It wouldn't affect anything at all ...
So you would choose to continue doing business with the debt dealing banksters while others prospered via the use of other tools which make barter simpler and enhance fair trade?
We are the soldiers for righteousnessAnd we are not sent here by the politicians you drink with - L. Dube, rip
bbnet:So you would choose to continue doing business with the debt dealing banksters while others prospered via the use of other tools which make barter simpler and enhance fair trade?
I would choose to have a debt free medium of exchange. A wealth money medium of exchange.
tomozope:I would choose to have a debt free medium of exchange. A wealth money medium of exchange.
If only I had some wealth money, I wouldn't need commodities and services.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
tomozope: filc: Tomozope. Can you competently solve calculus problems without knowing order of operations? And you'll never understand anything about money until you clearly understand the effects of interest.
filc: Tomozope. Can you competently solve calculus problems without knowing order of operations?
Tomozope.
Can you competently solve calculus problems without knowing order of operations?
And you'll never understand anything about money until you clearly understand the effects of interest.
No my friend, it is you who is backwards. The order of operations comes before solving calculus. In the same way interest comes after money, not before. More importantly however "economics" and an understanding of it comes before understanding monetary theory.
Your entire premise and understanding of monetary theory is nothing more then a student doing calculus problems with the order of operations backwards.
You have no authoritative position on this subject as you have no economic understanding. Until you understand economics your arguments on money are worthless.
tomozope: That's simply not true. We don't have a general rise in prices, what we have is finished prices that rise faster than the wages and the cost of raw materials.
That's simply not true. We don't have a general rise in prices, what we have is finished prices that rise faster than the wages and the cost of raw materials.
AKA general rise in prices. Wages are a part of the 'prices' apparatus.
tomozope: JackCuyler:Or one could trade a good or service for some gold coins. No borrowing necessary. That may be true for privately minted coins but those are not money because they have not been monetized and are not money. No borrowed necessary and no money created either.
JackCuyler:Or one could trade a good or service for some gold coins. No borrowing necessary.
That may be true for privately minted coins but those are not money because they have not been monetized and are not money. No borrowed necessary and no money created either.
With this statement, above all others, you have demonstrated you have no idea what money is. Money is a medium of exchange, nothing else. If one trades goods or services for coins (government approved or not) those coins are money. Coins do not need to be blessed by the government to become money; they simply need to be accepted as money by someone. That is, they need to be spent.
faber est suae quisque fortunae
JackCuyler:That may be true for privately minted coins but those are not money because they have not been monetized and are not money. No borrowed necessary and no money created either.
so 2500 years ago. Aristotle would agree with you.
Knight_of_BAAWA:And if you are unfamiliar with the workings of a gold standard, there are many excellent books you can read.
tomozope:The reality is that we've never had a true gold standard in this country.
JackCuyler: With this statement, above all others, you have demonstrated you have no idea what money is. Money is a medium of exchange, nothing else. If one trades goods or services for coins (government approved or not) those coins are money. Coins do not need to be blessed by the government to become money; they simply need to be accepted as money by someone. That is, they need to be spent.
1. Commodity money. This is a medium of exchange, the units of which are fixed amounts, fixed either by law or custom, of an actual commodity that has value other than as a medium of exchange. Most people falsely believe commodity money only means gold or silver money.
2. Fiduciary money. Fiduciary money is a medium of exchange composed of some intrinsically less valuable substance, usually paper or (cotton/linen) which the issuers promise to redeem in commodity money on demand. The fiduciary money is used for exchanges. Fiduciary money is based on trust, on the publics confidence that the issuer can be trusted to honor its promise to pay.
3. Fiat money. Fiat money is anthing that is declared money by law. In the United States all money is fiat money, including all coins and currency issued by the United States Government and including Federal Reserve Notes which are not issued by the government.
4. Debt money. Debt money is money that is created as a liability. A debt based monetary system is an economic system where money is created as a liability to the party issuing the money, or as a debt to the pary receiving the money, or as a debt to both the issuing party and the receiving party. This form of money is called debt-based or debt money because someone must have a debt for the money to exsist before the money can move into circulation.
5. Wealth money. Wealth money is money that is created and and spent or exchanged into circulation and is not a debt, liability or an obligation to either the user or the issuer. The 1792 coinage act is a good example of wealth money and under that law anyone who had some gold or silver, or who dug some gold or silver bullion our of the earth could take it to the United States Mint and have it turned into money free of charge. The biggest problem with gold and/or silver is that there simpley isn't enough of it on the earth to have it work as a general meduim of exchange.
Here is what the dictionary says about metal coinage "gold, silver, or other metal in pieces of convenient form stamped by public authority and issued as a medium of exchange and measure of value." That value being the number stamped on the coinage.
We use credit as our medium of exchange but it clearly is not money. The banks have tricked the people into believing that anything can be money but that simply isn't true. Only final payment can be true money, such as the principles of gold and silver under the 1792 free coinage act.
Money is something that is used to pay debts. Can you borrow enough from bob to pay bill and expect to get out of debt? It doesn't work, hence our failing economy.
JackCuyler:government approved or not
The dictionary doesn't say government, it just says public authority, which is accurate because if we go back to the days of the goldsmiths he was the public authority on minting coins. It was their job to weight, asset, and stamp the metal into coinage.
JackCuyler:If one trades goods or services for coins (government approved or not) those coins are money.
That is called barter. I could clean my neighbors barn for 1000 pounds of horse manure, and he pays me in the manure, does that mean that horse manure is now money? It got traded right?
JackCuyler:Coins do not need to be blessed by the government to become money; they simply need to be accepted as money by someone. That is, they need to be spent.
I've got 1000 pounds of horse manure and because it was traded to me it must be money right?
Knight_of_BAAWA:We had something pretty close. And I'm not going to respond to your conspiracy junk except to note that it's conspiracy junk.
The fact is that during the height of the gold rush just the interest on the government debt alone was twice that of all the gold coming into circulation. Nevermind all the private and business debts. The reality is the amount of credit in the system was at least (grew exponentially from there) 5 times the amount of gold AND silver with the silver vastly our numbering the gold. That is why in the late 1800's the banks had silver de-monetized to create a money crisis (switch people from wealth money and force them onto debt money). We've never been at all close to a gold standard at all.
filc:AKA general rise in prices. Wages are a part of the 'prices' apparatus.
And if the wages and raw materials rose at the same rate of the finished products why would we care what the prices are?
I make 10 bucks an hour, and a chair costs 20. Two hours of wages.
I make 20 bucks an hour and a chair costs 40. Two hours of wages.
Now if I make 10 bucks an hour and the chair costs 40, it's 4 hours of wages. Clearly there wasn't a "general rise in prices". There was only a rise on the retail product.
tomozope: And if the wages and raw materials rose at the same rate of the finished products why would we care what the prices are?
and if something that never happens happens why should we care about X.
well, you should care about it because the thing that would , by happening, exempt you from caring about it, won't be happening.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
tomozope:The fact is that during the height of the gold rush just the interest on the government debt alone was twice that of all the gold coming into circulation.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Cite, please.
It's somewhere around 3/4ths the way the back. This book was written in 1896. The Comming Battle. http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/comingbattle/cbtabcon.htm
tomozope:I've got 1000 pounds of horse manure and because it was traded to me it must be money right?
Manure is used as money in some remote parts of the world, it is a good source of energy for fire hearths and insulation for shelters. Sticks of wood were used as money in England hundreds of years ago.
Do you believe everything that you read?
tomozope: It's somewhere around 3/4ths the way the back. This book was written in 1896. The Comming Battle. http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/comingbattle/cbtabcon.htm
Which page?
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
bbnet:Manure is used as money in some remote parts of the world, it is a good source of energy for fire hearths and insulation for shelters.
The it's being used as a commodity.
bbnet:Sticks of wood were used as money in England hundreds of years ago.
Yes Tally sticks and they were monetized by the king right? It just wasn't some old stick laying around in the forest.
tomozope: bbnet:Manure is used as money in some remote parts of the world, it is a good source of energy for fire hearths and insulation for shelters. The it's being used as a commodity.
If it is also being used as a medium of exchange, it's money. For thousands of years, gold has been both a commodity (jewelry, etc) and money.
He never said it was being used to facilitate trading. He said it was being used as money because they heated and insulated their homes with it. By that logic we use timber, tar, and cement as money because we use those to insulate/heat our homes.
Gold was used as money at one point in time yes, but it was never the dominate money in America. We don't live in Africa nor use cow pies for money. We use numbers for money now. There never has been enough gold and/or silver to make a general meduim of exchange, if their had been the people would have never borrowed the receipts from the goldsmith and expanded the money supply that way unless there truely was a shortage of money.
tomozope: He never said it was being used to facilitate trading. He said it was being used as money because they heated and insulated their homes with it. By that logic we use timber, tar, and cement as money because we use those to insulate/heat our homes. Gold was used as money at one point in time yes, but it was never the dominate money in America. We don't live in Africa nor use cow pies for money. We use numbers for money now. There never has been enough gold and/or silver to make a general meduim of exchange, if their had been the people would have never borrowed the receipts from the goldsmith and expanded the money supply that way unless there truely was a shortage of money.
You are saying that because of a shortage of gold and silver, people had to borrow receipts from goldsmiths and consequently expanded the money supply (let's put aside the practicality of carrying goldsmith receipts instead of metal coins).
Under that statement, if I go to the bank today and ask for a loan, does this mean that we are short of medium of exchange?
"A man’s time is always scarce." - Murray N. Rothbard
Never mind Mises money clips! Where are the Mises wheelbarrows?
tomozope:Gold was used as money at one point in time yes, but it was never the dominate money in America.
A) You are factually incorrect.
We just witnessed this in Zimbabwe when locals switched back to commodities on their own.
tomozope:There never has been enough gold and/or silver to make a general meduim of exchange,
You are again factually incorrect. There has always been enough, we have disproven your logic on this probably 10 times now.
tomozope: if their had been the people would have never borrowed the receipts from the goldsmith and expanded the money supply that way unless there truely was a shortage of money.
There is never a need to expand or reduce a money supply.
Tom your still trying to solve calculus problems without the order of operations.
Matgre:Under that statement, if I go to the bank today and ask for a loan, does this mean that we are short of medium of exchange?
If you had the money why would you go to the bank and borrow it and pay interest on it?
tomozope:If you had the money why would you go to the bank and borrow it and pay interest on it?
Because you don't have enough time. An entrepreneur sees a potential profitable opportunity and he wants to act; but, if he did not save enough money on his own, that is, he consumed too much, he will be unable to engage in that investment. This is why he goes and borrows money. Sure, he could save, but he may miss that opportunity. What exactly are you saying? All people should have enough money to engage in any economic activity at any time? This is pure shit, and no adult should get away with thinking like this; it's inexcusable.
This is why I asked you, right from the beginning, what happens when the price of oranges rise? Would you say, "there needs to be an increase in the money supply, or else no one can buy those oranges." The answer is, people can buy those oranges if they stop buying apples, or cut down on apple consumption (or anything else); likewise, if people borrow too much, they must stop consuming and pay back their creditors (paying pack the time they bought). Interest is a real economic phenomena.
I don't know why I'm still trying to help you. You're the epitome of hopeless. God help us.
tomozope: Matgre:Under that statement, if I go to the bank today and ask for a loan, does this mean that we are short of medium of exchange? If you had the money why would you go to the bank and borrow it and pay interest on it?
Tom, you have revealed that you do not know what the purpose of a loan is. It has nothing to do with lack of money. It is a TEMPORAL issue.
Again you prove to us that you are trying to so solve calculus problems without understanding the order of operations first.
Learn Economics
Rothbard:It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.
Esuric:This is pure shit, and no adult should get away with thinking like this; it's inexcusable.
Perhaps he's not an adult?
Esuric:I don't know why I'm still trying to help you. You're the epitome of hopeless. God help us.
ditto
filc: Rothbard:It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.
AMEN
Esuric: JackCuyler:That may be true for privately minted coins but those are not money because they have not been monetized and are not money. No borrowed necessary and no money created either. so 2500 years ago. Aristotle would agree with you.
Pssst.. That wasn't me.
filc:Tom, you have revealed that you do not know what the purpose of a loan is. It has nothing to do with lack of money. It is a TEMPORAL issue.
Do you understand that there is NO MONEY in circulation unless someone borrows it from the bank where they CREATE the money when they make the loan?
Esuric: Because you don't have enough time. An entrepreneur sees a potential profitable opportunity and he wants to act; but, if he did not save enough money on his own, that is, he consumed too much, he will be unable to engage in that investment. This is why he goes and borrows money. Sure, he could save, but he may miss that opportunity. What exactly are you saying? All people should have enough money to engage in any economic activity at any time? This is pure shit, and no adult should get away with thinking like this; it's inexcusable. This is why I asked you, right from the beginning, what happens when the price of oranges rise? Would you say, "there needs to be an increase in the money supply, or else no one can buy those oranges." The answer is, people can buy those oranges if they stop buying apples, or cut down on apple consumption (or anything else); likewise, if people borrow too much, they must stop consuming and pay back their creditors (paying pack the time they bought). Interest is a real economic phenomena. I don't know why I'm still trying to help you. You're the epitome of hopeless. God help us.
Do you understand that prices are set between two people at any given point in time?
Do you also understand that there is no money until someone borrows it?
Do you also understand that in our current system paying down the debt destroys the money supply?
Do you also understand that the only way we can be prosperous under this system is by a lot of people going massively deeping in debt (new money).
How can anyone profit when they have to borrow all the money into exsistance?
Esuric: but, if he did not save enough money on his own
And where is this money magically going to come from?
What would make the prices of these oranges magically rise? If you tell me more money in circulation can you explain logically why that statement would be true?
tomozope: filc:Tom, you have revealed that you do not know what the purpose of a loan is. It has nothing to do with lack of money. It is a TEMPORAL issue. Do you understand that there is NO MONEY in circulation unless someone borrows it from the bank where they CREATE the money when they make the loan?
What I understand is you have absolutely no clue as to what your talking about. And the citation you provided earlier was a website espousing economic fallacies. I do know that you havn't read one book on the topic of money and credit. I do know that yuor entire education on the subject has been from youtube and back-alley websites like the one you posted above that are filled with conspiracy theory's and other unsubstantiated garbage.
I do know that you continue to make sense of monetary theory despite being in the state of economic ignorance. I do know that you have no desire to learn about economics and that you willing continue to beleive fallacy's. I do know that you continue to solve caclulus refusing to use a correct order of operations.
I do understand that you are a money crank and a zealot who admits to deliberately avoiding fundamental economic principles.
Have a good one!
tomozope:Do you understand that prices are set between two people at any given point in time?
I think Esuric has proven that he understands quiet a bit more than you.
tomozope:Do you also understand that there is no money until someone borrows it?
This statement seems to be in conflict with the one above it. It is also fallacious. Money is a unit of exchange. If I choose to trade 2 xbox's for 1 playstation I have used a gaming console as a unit of exchange. Did I need to borrow the Xbox before I traded it? How many times must we repeatedly reveal your fallacy's to you.
tomozope:Do you also understand that the only way we can be prosperous under this system is by a lot of people going massively deeping in debt (new money).
What we understand, that you do not. Is not that "This System" needs to be replaced with "Another System" of equal functionality like you espouse. But that the system needs to be dismantled all together and that money is an economic good just as anything else on the market. It will be distributed just as milk is distributed magically every day at your local grocer.
tomozope:How can anyone profit when they have to borrow all the money into exsistance? Esuric: but, if he did not save enough money on his own
How do people live in big homes, drive fast cars, have personal airplains, The last 100 years of serious economic growth seems to have serious issue with what your saying here. Its obvious your delusional at this point.
Look if you want to believe the sky is red by all means go for it. You believing the sky is red and repeating it over and over doesn't make it any less blue. You have fooled yourself and you refuse to do research on the matter. Instead you just continue to watch silly youtube videos.
tomozope:What would make the prices of these oranges magically rise? If you tell me more money in circulation can you explain logically why that statement would be true?
I have explained this to you 3 times now.
In a closed system if we have 10 people with 100 units of exchange everyone would receive 10 units of exchange. Prices would be based on thhat overall supply. In this system the value of an apple may be 0.10 units of an exchange.
If we have 50 people with 100 units of exchange everyone would have 2 units of exchange. Prices would be based on the overall supply of units of exchange. In contrast to the first system an apple may be 0.02 units of exchange.
The monetary value of a good is mearly a reflection of it's worth. Therefore prices correlate with the quantity of money in supply.
By y our concept if we simply printed new money "REAL WEALTH" would fall out of the sky into existence. This isn't true. If you create NEW money your still representing the same quantity of steel, raw materials or consumer goods. More money does NOT MEAN more STEEL.
You would have known this had you study just the basics of economics. Yet you still continue to refuse to do so and as much continue to make embarrassing elementary mistakes.
tomozope:And where is this money magically going to come from?
If I loan you 3 sandwhich's today, in return you must pay me 4 sandwhich's next month. Where do my 3 sandwhich's come from? I certainly didn't blink them into existence.
tomozope:It's somewhere around 3/4ths the way the back. This book was written in 1896. The Comming Battle. http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/comingbattle/cbtabcon.htm
tomozope:Do you understand that there is NO MONEY in circulation unless someone borrows it from the bank where they CREATE the money when they make the loan?
tomozope: Do you understand that prices are set between two people at any given point in time? Do you also understand that there is no money until someone borrows it? Do you also understand that in our current system paying down the debt destroys the money supply? Do you also understand that the only way we can be prosperous under this system is by a lot of people going massively deeping in debt (new money). How can anyone profit when they have to borrow all the money into exsistance? And where is this money magically going to come from? What would make the prices of these oranges magically rise? If you tell me more money in circulation can you explain logically why that statement would be true?
Oh yeah I forgot, grandmothers are stealing all the debt money and we don't have any wealth money. y=t+b/25^3fuuguXx(t+1)lf(K,L)ERROR!u+d/16($+@)!
filc: tomozope:And where is this money magically going to come from? If I loan you 3 sandwhich's today, in return you must pay me 4 sandwhich's next month. Where do my 3 sandwhich's come from? I certainly didn't blink them into existence.
Magic Beans. Sinister Magic Beans. The real question is how am I going to get that fourth sandwich, since we know I don't own any magic beans?
Its obvious that only the banks have magic beans, or else where did they get the money to lend in the first place without being in debt, as we are told all money is debt based(except magic bean money).
Peace
Is this thread still going?From the looks of it its where it was when I left off.Idiots: IF I LEND U 10 DOLLARS U OWE ME 11 BUT U ONLY HAD 10 HAHAMises People: you can't repay the loan with the loan money... which is why you supplement it with other income...Idiots: IF I LENT U 10 DOLARS U OWE ME 11 BUT U ONLY HAD 10 HAHAHAHA
Snowflake: Is this thread still going?From the looks of it its where it was when I left off.Idiots: IF I LEND U 10 DOLLARS U OWE ME 11 BUT U ONLY HAD 10 HAHAMises People: you can't repay the loan with the loan money... which is why you supplement it with other income...Idiots: IF I LENT U 10 DOLARS U OWE ME 11 BUT U ONLY HAD 10 HAHAHAHA
I know this will not really add to the quality of this already failing thread but:
HAHAH!
tomozope: Live_Free_Or_Die:I am not in agreement with tom that money creation starts with checkbook money. Before the fed could initially create any checkbook money it had to meet a reserve requirement under the federal reserve act. This is partially true, before the banks can create any checkbook money the banks must meet a reserve requirement? What does that reserve requirement consist of? Another book keeping entry. http://www.theantechamber.net/VkDocuments/DeptOfTreas/DeptOfTreasPage3.html
Live_Free_Or_Die:I am not in agreement with tom that money creation starts with checkbook money. Before the fed could initially create any checkbook money it had to meet a reserve requirement under the federal reserve act.
This is partially true, before the banks can create any checkbook money the banks must meet a reserve requirement? What does that reserve requirement consist of? Another book keeping entry.
http://www.theantechamber.net/VkDocuments/DeptOfTreas/DeptOfTreasPage3.html
It is true, don't feed me that partially true bs...
Section 16. (1913 Federal Reserve Act HR 7837)
Every Federal reserve bank shall maintain reserves in gold or lawful money of not less than thirty-five per centum against its deposits and reserves in gold of not less than forty per centum against its Federal reserve notes in actual circulation, and not offset by gold or lawful money deposited with the Federal reserve agent
tomozope:But most importanly we don't use the reserves for money, and some local bankers told me that they don't even pay much, if any attention to them anymore. Reserves are mearly a way for central control over the National Banks (federally chartered banks) and not the state chartered banks. State Chartered banks are 100% controlled by the state laws and those vary from state to state.
You are incorrect about state banks, they could opt in:
Section 8
Any bank incorporated by special law of any State or of the United States or organized under the general laws of any State or of the United States and having an unimpaired capital sufficient to entitle it to become a national banking association under the provisions of the existing laws may. by the vote of the shareholders owning not less than fifty-one per centum of the capital stock of such bank or banking association, with the approval of the Comptroller of the Currency be converted into a national banking association, with any name approved by the Comptroller of the Currency
tomozope: Live_Free_Or_Die:I do not believe interest is the real problem because interest represents time if you are loaning something you own. I consider government spending the big problem because that is why the fed monetizes and inflates. I believe you when you say that you don't believe interest is a problem. Most people believe it's a blessing because that is what most of us have been taught our entire lives, but if interest isn't a problem why is it everyone complains about high interest rates? Clearly its a problem for them. If it doesn't affect our lives why do people try to get the lowest rate possible? Interest is the cost of doing business, along with taxes. The government creates no money therefore does not "spend" it. The government first BORROWS the money (or taxes it away from people who already borrowed it) then spends it. But all that money was always created by an extention of credit by a private commercial bank.
Live_Free_Or_Die:I do not believe interest is the real problem because interest represents time if you are loaning something you own. I consider government spending the big problem because that is why the fed monetizes and inflates.
I believe you when you say that you don't believe interest is a problem. Most people believe it's a blessing because that is what most of us have been taught our entire lives, but if interest isn't a problem why is it everyone complains about high interest rates? Clearly its a problem for them. If it doesn't affect our lives why do people try to get the lowest rate possible? Interest is the cost of doing business, along with taxes. The government creates no money therefore does not "spend" it. The government first BORROWS the money (or taxes it away from people who already borrowed it) then spends it. But all that money was always created by an extention of credit by a private commercial bank.
Again it's not interest that is the problem. The problem is that anything can not be money without government persecuting or stealing it from you. Kind of like the circle analogy I made earlier in the thread.
tomozope: Live_Free_Or_Die:I do think present money represents debt/government obligation. I haven't seen any explanation of how it is not representative of government obligation. Government does not produce anything. The Law says otherwise. When they passed took us off the gold standard they passed a law saying all this money will be BACKED by the FULL FAITH AND CREDIT OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. Credit is an agreement to pay something later. The only collateral the government has to pay with is your property. Literally all of these debts (private, government, business) are backed with our property as a mortgage to the banking system on a promise to pay that they never have to honor, and the only way out of this debt is to put money into circulation that is free of debt. I'm not saying they passed good law, they passed bad law. Now it's up to us to start passing good laws that benifit the people and repeal the bad laws designed to give the banking system a business that can't fail (not for the big guys because they operate on a different set of rules).
Live_Free_Or_Die:I do think present money represents debt/government obligation. I haven't seen any explanation of how it is not representative of government obligation. Government does not produce anything.
The Law says otherwise. When they passed took us off the gold standard they passed a law saying all this money will be BACKED by the FULL FAITH AND CREDIT OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. Credit is an agreement to pay something later. The only collateral the government has to pay with is your property. Literally all of these debts (private, government, business) are backed with our property as a mortgage to the banking system on a promise to pay that they never have to honor, and the only way out of this debt is to put money into circulation that is free of debt.
I'm not saying they passed good law, they passed bad law. Now it's up to us to start passing good laws that benifit the people and repeal the bad laws designed to give the banking system a business that can't fail (not for the big guys because they operate on a different set of rules).
Government obligation... full faith and credit... what is the difference? Either way the money is based on a government DEBT (and I am still waiting for the detractors to clearly articulate how money does not represent debt). It is peoples perception of government's ability to pay an obligation that gives the federal reserve system value which is measured by treasury securities.
The collateral government has is not my private property. That is just pure bs. The collateral government has is the power to tax by all means necessary.
Sources:
A nice resource for the legislative history of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913:
http://www.llsdc.org/FRA-LH/
PDF of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913:
http://www.llsdc.org/attachments/files/105/FRA-LH-PL63-43.pdf
filc:In a closed system if we have 10 people with 100 units of exchange everyone would receive 10 units of exchange. Prices would be based on thhat overall supply. In this system the value of an apple may be 0.10 units of an exchange.
How did all that money get put into circulation?
filc:If we have 50 people with 100 units of exchange everyone would have 2 units of exchange. Prices would be based on the overall supply of units of exchange. In contrast to the first system an apple may be 0.02 units of exchange.
or people would have to go without because there isn't enough money for everyone to purcahse oranges?
filc:The monetary value of a good is mearly a reflection of it's worth. Therefore prices correlate with the quantity of money in supply.
The author still won't factor in (and always avoids) the cost of doing business. My suspiction is that he/she has never owned or ran any kind of business. The cost of doing business is interest and taxes.
filc:By y our concept if we simply printed new money "REAL WEALTH" would fall out of the sky into existence.
How would that money be moved into circulation? If it's spent in on permanant infrastructure, then yes new wealth would be created. If it's loaned in the it's a promise of future production that may or may not happen.
filc:If you create NEW money your still representing the same quantity of steel, raw materials or consumer goods. More money does NOT MEAN more STEEL.
We are contantly mining more iron every day, now lets add some enchancements to that iron, make some steel, now spend brand new money to rebuild our infrastructure with that new steel. Any time in history whenever there is an increase of the money the production has always increased BUT we are doing it all as interest bearing loans now, further increasing the cost of doing business (what really destroys the purchasing power of the money).
filc:You would have known this had you study just the basics of economics. Yet you still continue to refuse to do so and as much continue to make embarrassing elementary mistakes.
I don't think I would want to study basic economics because that last time I read one of those books it wasn't until page 200 and something that they said banks create all the money as interest bearing loans. If all these businesses are producing so much and being so profitable, why are they collectively getting deeping in debt if they are all making a profit? Both cannot be true, and those economics books simply do not focus on the root cause of america's financial problems. I think I can figure out how to get into debt up to my eyeballs on my own, what i want to figure out is how to have everyone get out of debt and still have a functioning medium of exchange that is based on the principles of gold/silver except lets use something where there is enough of it.