|
|
#71
05-28-2007, 02:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Could Someone Please Explain the Money Supply?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Well duh, that's why governments (who issue fiat money) outlaw competing minters. [/ QUOTE ] No, they don't. [ QUOTE ] Andrew Williams, a spokesman for the Federal Reserve in Washington, D.C.: "There is no law that says goods and services must be paid for with Federal Reserve notes. Parties entering into a transaction can establish any medium of exchange that is agreed upon." [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] Ummm [ QUOTE ] On September 13. 2006 the US Mint issued a "Warning" that it was illegal to use the Liberty Dollar. Then on Tuesday, March 20. 2007 Liberty Services, the organization that promotes and distributes the Liberty Dollar, has filed suit against the U.S. Mint in U.S. District Court in Evansville Indiana to enjoin the government from claiming that the use of Liberty Dollar is a 'federal crime'. [/ QUOTE ] To begin with it is fairly irrelevant if the a government stifles the competition via an outright law or by proclamations that use of the competing currency is illegal (the only difference is the degree of effectiveness). Threats of jail time against users create uncertainty and devalue the currency, AND the federal government still can pass legislation to make said act illegal if the competition becomes to steep (this is essentially what happened during the great depression when FDR made it illegal for US citizens to hold gold). 
|
|
#72
05-28-2007, 03:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Could Someone Please Explain the Money Supply?
[ QUOTE ]
To begin with it is fairly irrelevant if the a government stifles the competition via an outright law or by proclamations that use of the competing currency is illegal (the only difference is the degree of effectiveness). Threats of jail time against users create uncertainty and devalue the currency, AND the federal government still can pass legislation to make said act illegal if the competition becomes to steep (this is essentially what happened during the great depression when FDR made it illegal for US citizens to hold gold). [/ QUOTE ] Flashback - FDR: Greatest thief in the history of the world?
|
|
#73
05-28-2007, 04:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Could Someone Please Explain the Money Supply?
[ QUOTE ]
On September 13. 2006 the US Mint issued a "Warning" that it was illegal to use the Liberty Dollar. Then on Tuesday, March 20. 2007 Liberty Services, the organization that promotes and distributes the Liberty Dollar, has filed suit against the U.S. Mint in U.S. District Court in Evansville Indiana to enjoin the government from claiming that the use of Liberty Dollar is a 'federal crime'. [/ QUOTE ] The illegal part was not that people were minting their own currency but rather they were passing them off as US Dollars.
|
|
#74
05-28-2007, 04:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Could Someone Please Explain the Money Supply?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Well duh, that's why governments (who issue fiat money) outlaw competing minters. [/ QUOTE ] No, they don't. [ QUOTE ] Andrew Williams, a spokesman for the Federal Reserve in Washington, D.C.: "There is no law that says goods and services must be paid for with Federal Reserve notes. Parties entering into a transaction can establish any medium of exchange that is agreed upon." [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] Ummm [ QUOTE ] On September 13. 2006 the US Mint issued a "Warning" that it was illegal to use the Liberty Dollar. Then on Tuesday, March 20. 2007 Liberty Services, the organization that promotes and distributes the Liberty Dollar, has filed suit against the U.S. Mint in U.S. District Court in Evansville Indiana to enjoin the government from claiming that the use of Liberty Dollar is a 'federal crime'. [/ QUOTE ] To begin with it is fairly irrelevant if the a government stifles the competition via an outright law or by proclamations that use of the competing currency is illegal (the only difference is the degree of effectiveness). Threats of jail time against users create uncertainty and devalue the currency, AND the federal government still can pass legislation to make said act illegal if the competition becomes to steep (this is essentially what happened during the great depression when FDR made it illegal for US citizens to hold gold). [/ QUOTE ] currency of foreign countries is also legal, and that is his point in discussing the peso. Youre interpretation of the paper is all wet. When I get back from the beach Ill explain why.
|
|
#75
05-28-2007, 05:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Could Someone Please Explain the Money Supply?
Here's an interesting case study concerning what you guys are talking about.
http://www.moneymaker.com/italy/money01.htm Sorry the source sucks (there's not too much info on it in English), but it's legit--I learned about it in econ class.
|
|
#76
05-28-2007, 06:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Could Someone Please Explain the Money Supply?
[ QUOTE ]
On September 13. 2006 the US Mint issued a "Warning" that it was illegal to use the Liberty Dollar. Then on Tuesday, March 20. 2007 Liberty Services, the organization that promotes and distributes the Liberty Dollar, has filed suit against the U.S. Mint in U.S. District Court in Evansville Indiana to enjoin the government from claiming that the use of Liberty Dollar is a 'federal crime'. [/ QUOTE ] His discussion of the peso is also a joke as he argues that somehow a bank could print up receipts, suspend payment of the silver, spend the silver and that receipts would still retain their value.
|
|
#77
05-28-2007, 06:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Could Someone Please Explain the Money Supply?
[ QUOTE ]
Here's an interesting case study concerning what you guys are talking about. http://www.moneymaker.com/italy/money01.htm Sorry the source sucks (there's not too much info on it in English), but it's legit--I learned about it in econ class. [/ QUOTE ] Whats his theory, other than that if he "sells" the lire at half its value he will eventually go broke?
|
|
#78
05-29-2007, 01:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Could Someone Please Explain the Money Supply?
[ QUOTE ]
In my example the government already had the gold, it just hadnt issued the paper money in that quantity. It might have acquired that gold by its own mining operations, by conquest etc. [ QUOTE ] I don't understand. After the gov't gives some tax revenue to the Fed to cover the bonds, the Fed will still have gotten something for nothing - even assuming that the money printed doesn't exceed the governments ability to tax and cover that money. [/ QUOTE ] Maybe your confusion is coming from the thin separation between the Fed and the Government? Forget the Fed...lets just say its a government that issues its own money. It has an asset that is backing the money it issues. It may have 50 trillion in bullion and only issued 40 trillion in paper money, or it might have the ability to tax its citizens for 50 trillion, even though its currently only taxing them for 40 trillion and issued that much paper money. [/ QUOTE ] It still sounds like the Fed is getting the T bonds for free under the current system. If there were a gold standard, and the quantity of gold that the Fed owned is greater than than the quantity of gold represented by gold-backed money in circulation, then the Fed would still be giving up the excess gold when it introduced new gold-backed currency into circulation. They would be giving up something in return for the Treasury bonds - they would give up their ownership of the excess gold. If you need to show that the Fed isn't defrauding us and the gov't under the current system by assuming that the Fed is part of the gov't, doesn't that strengthen the idea that they are defrauding us? The Fed is private, right?
|
|
#79
05-29-2007, 01:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Could Someone Please Explain the Money Supply?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] In my example the government already had the gold, it just hadnt issued the paper money in that quantity. It might have acquired that gold by its own mining operations, by conquest etc. [ QUOTE ] I don't understand. After the gov't gives some tax revenue to the Fed to cover the bonds, the Fed will still have gotten something for nothing - even assuming that the money printed doesn't exceed the governments ability to tax and cover that money. [/ QUOTE ] Maybe your confusion is coming from the thin separation between the Fed and the Government? Forget the Fed...lets just say its a government that issues its own money. It has an asset that is backing the money it issues. It may have 50 trillion in bullion and only issued 40 trillion in paper money, or it might have the ability to tax its citizens for 50 trillion, even though its currently only taxing them for 40 trillion and issued that much paper money. [/ QUOTE ] It still sounds like the Fed is getting the T bonds for free under the current system. If there were a gold standard, and the quantity of gold that the Fed owned is greater than than the quantity of gold represented by gold-backed money in circulation, then the Fed would still be giving up the excess gold when it introduced new gold-backed currency into circulation. They would be giving up something in return for the Treasury bonds - they would give up their ownership of the excess gold. If you need to show that the Fed isn't defrauding us and the gov't under the current system by assuming that the Fed is part of the gov't, doesn't that strengthen the idea that they are defrauding us? The Fed is private, right? [/ QUOTE ] Its not private, it is "quasi-governmental". I don't recall any part of my participation in this thread having anything to do with disproving "fraud". Inflammatory nonsense like that isnt even worth responding to.
|
|
#80
05-29-2007, 01:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Could Someone Please Explain the Money Supply?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] In my example the government already had the gold, it just hadnt issued the paper money in that quantity. It might have acquired that gold by its own mining operations, by conquest etc. [ QUOTE ] I don't understand. After the gov't gives some tax revenue to the Fed to cover the bonds, the Fed will still have gotten something for nothing - even assuming that the money printed doesn't exceed the governments ability to tax and cover that money. [/ QUOTE ] Maybe your confusion is coming from the thin separation between the Fed and the Government? Forget the Fed...lets just say its a government that issues its own money. It has an asset that is backing the money it issues. It may have 50 trillion in bullion and only issued 40 trillion in paper money, or it might have the ability to tax its citizens for 50 trillion, even though its currently only taxing them for 40 trillion and issued that much paper money. [/ QUOTE ] It still sounds like the Fed is getting the T bonds for free under the current system. If there were a gold standard, and the quantity of gold that the Fed owned is greater than than the quantity of gold represented by gold-backed money in circulation, then the Fed would still be giving up the excess gold when it introduced new gold-backed currency into circulation. They would be giving up something in return for the Treasury bonds - they would give up their ownership of the excess gold. If you need to show that the Fed isn't defrauding us and the gov't under the current system by assuming that the Fed is part of the gov't, doesn't that strengthen the idea that they are defrauding us? The Fed is private, right? [/ QUOTE ] Its not private, it is "quasi-governmental". I don't recall any part of my participation in this thread having anything to do with disproving "fraud". Inflammatory nonsense like that isnt even worth responding to. [/ QUOTE ] Ok. Poor word choice - sorry. I'm not trying to inflame, I'm just trying to understand why it's not like that. Change it to 'getting a free lunch' or 'getting something for nothing'. In what ways is it quasi-governmental as opposed to private or fully-governmental?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
