Lets go through all the steps at the basic level. We’ll just say this is the first loan ever made. There is no debt and no money in the system.
Lets say you’re selling houses. The person gets a loan from the bank for Z + Y then draws down on his checking account and withdraws the FRN’s.
You’re just the seller, you do not collect any interest. If you’re a bank you do not produce any product. Please clarify weather you’re a bank or a producer before we go any further.
You are drawing a conclusion the obligation is real property based on that section of code?
That section of codes refers to lawful money not property.
How about railing about the smoking gun…
Prove the use of federal reserve private credit is not voluntary. If you can do that then you could challenge the constitutionality of private credit tax (aka. income tax).
I can articulate based on Supreme Court rulings how you are taxed on the use of private credit which substantiates my assertion the obligation is taxation. You bring nothing to the table. Start with the Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR Co. and other rulings about income tax or the 16th Amendment to understand what the obligation is.
And that’s true but can you tell me what the statutory definition of lawful money is? Can you also provide the statutory definition of the dollar? A recent court case in Minneapolis where the FED bank of Minneapolis got sued and after some appeals went into federal court and in every case the FED said there is no statutory definition of the dollar. They got sued to pay up in lawful money in dollars as their notes had printing on their faces and the court threw it out because the plaintiff sougt action for which there was no relief. Lawful money in dollars does not exsist.
Try to live without it, and if you own any property and don’t pay your taxes in “dollars” (numbers created by the banking system) see how long you’ll have a place to live. If you refuse to pay you’ll get tossed in the jail cell by the alert american jury system (the average american jury is so stupid they would convict a ham sandwhich of trying to impersonate a turkey sandwhich).
Taxes are just a symptom of the problem.
Tell me, if we eliminated all taxes tomorrow, how would that solve the 57 trillion dollar interest bearing debt placed on American’s?
We could debate taxes all day long, but how about we start looking at why the government lays such oppressive taxes on the american people when the government could just create all the money it needs to pay for things our society desperatly needs. Like an overhaulded and modernized infrasturture system that would benifit everyone?
Can we just stick to how money is created and destroyed?
Gold. I showed you empirical evidence with the original law.
Government monopolies can exist without government help? Ya whatever. The statement is a contradiction.
Monopolies are not bad. The only way a monopoly can sustain itself in a free market is if it keeps consumers happy. In a free market there is always competition or a threat of competition to keep monopolies in check. How can you spew that government is supposed to break up monopolies and post on Mises? The statement is a fundamental contradiction to a free market.
I already posted this and it is a historical fact.
The federal reserve system started out as a fractional reserve system and failed when people demanded their gold.
The government eliminated the requirement to redeem payable on demand instruments in gold
The government granted the federal reserve a monopoly on legal tender creation
The government dissolved bretton woods
Government intervention is the problem from A-Z. How can you even argue otherwise? The solution is obvious, undo everything government has done starting with repealing legal tender law and abolish the federal reserve system.
You couldn’t be further from the truth.
Section 10
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (hereinafter referred to as the “Board”) shall be composed of seven members, to be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate
100% privately owned yes… 100% privately controlled… hardly.
Refer to my previous post about the Supreme Court 16th Amendment rulings and income tax.
A possibility. Price things in a unit of weight not dollars.
I will leave that to the more educated Austrians around here because they have been trying to do that.
You are not bringing anything new to the table here. People have been challenging government for quite some time over lawful money. There have been people that have documented letters they got from the treasury seeking to redeem FRN’s to lawful currency. They received U.S. Notes. Then they tried to redeem the U.S. Notes.
Look up First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Jerome Daily.
“Defendant appeared and answered that the Plaintiff created the money and credit upon its own books by bookeeping entry as the consideration for the Note and Mortgage of May 8, 1964 and alleged failure of consideration for the Mortgage Deed and alleged that the Sheriff’s sale passed no title to plaintiff.”
Again you are not bringing anything new to the table by questioning what is lawful money.
You are so limited in your thinking. You haven’t proved anything. The only thing you can prove is the form of payment certain businesses accept. They are free to VOLUNTARILY accept whatever form of payment they want for goods and services. They choose to use dollars. Some places wont’ take anything larger than 20’s. Some places take personal checks some don’t. Some places accept alternate local currencies some don’t. You have to prove it’s not voluntary not that you can’t seem find anyone that won’t accept anything but dollars because I know people that will accept forms of payment other than dollars.
No we can’t because I referred to a specific tax… the private credit tax (aka income tax) which is the obligation
You can choose to learn about the Supreme Court rulings on the income tax and the 16th Amendment to understand the obligation or continue to incorrectly claim the obligation is property the government does not own.
The consumer is not getting a loan from the bank. I am extending the loan. Surely you have seen a buy here pay here car lot?
Let’s scrap my example and use the buy here pay here car lot example to simplify:
Car costs me $1,000. I am selling it for:
#1 $2,000 cash
#2 $2,100 credit card
#3 $0 down, take the car today, 12 payments of $200.
Does option 3 create money?
It means the same thing in this context. There are many costs of doing business. It makes no sense to say that interest and taxes are the costs of doing business. They are each a cost of business but neither are necessary for a business to function. You don’t need to go into debt to be a business owner and in a truly free market, there would be no taxes.
It’s the medium of exchange in an economic system. This has been stated many times on this thread.
Of course we’re not talking about calculus. It was brought up as an analogy. One doesn’t learn calculus before algebra, or algebra before the order of operations. Similarly, one does not study monetary economics before understanding what money is, how it emerges, why it is fundamental to a complex economy, etc.
What drives an economy is production. You’re trying to suggest money is the fuel, but money is simply the medium of exchange. Yes it’s vital, but you don’t look at the bigger picture before understanding what money is. You’re trying to put the cart in front of the horse.
You just contradicted yourself in those two sentences. In one you say that the cost of doing business is interest and taxes and then you go on to say businesses have other costs. I think you need to be more careful about your wording.
I never said auctions happen frequently. And when did I say stores bid prices up through competition? If you read what I wrote, I stated that if consumers do not purchase the products a store offers at prevailing prices, then those prices must come down to clear the market. My point was to illustrate that consumers influence the price even though they don’t physically set the price. Obviously competition drives costs down. I’m not even sure why you brought that up. It has nothing to do with the point I was making.
What does that have to do with my analysis? We’re not talking here about where money comes from. I didn’t specify what kind of monetary system exists in the situation I described. Where the money comes from is totally irrelevant to what I am talking about in this section. The money could be issued as debt, it could be gold, it could be paper money, it could be electronic money; it doesn’t matter in the context of the situation I’m describing. We’re just talking about the effect consumers have on the price of some product. Stay with me.
The US dollar.
It is created in a multitude of ways. Some is created out of thin air by the fed when purchasing various assets (the money can either be printed or created electronically). Some is created by the banking system in some proportion to total reserves.
In our current system when the Fed buys assets, it pays for them with money created out of thin air. When it buys government securities, the government then spends that money on various programs and projects. When the banks receive more reserves, they can loan out money created out of thin air.
Why are these quotes attributed to me? I only said the last one and it was addressed to filc. I never said you watched the zeigeist films, although you sound exactly like what is presented there.
Old myths die hard. The amount of gold or silver is irrelevant once established as the medium of exchange. If you wanted to establish a link between gold and the supply of dollars (going on a gold standard) you simply find the amount of dollars and divide by the amount of gold and you will get a dollar amount per oz. of gold. There is nothing sacred about this number but once established, it would have to be maintained in order to truly be a gold standard (though ideally, the production of money would be transferred to the private sector).
Determining the true amount of dollars is and the process by which to link the gold back to the dollar is certainly a field that is subject to debate. There is a great deal of literature on this website about this. There is no excuse for ignorant comments like “there isn’t enough gold” except apathy or laziness.
False.
Since I’m not talking about that, I have no idea why you brought that up.
And no, the entire thread has NOT been about private credit and FRNs. I’ll thank you to learn how to comprehend English.
Yet money qua money has nothing to do with that. And yet you PERSIST in your narrow view of money-as-debt, no matter how many times you trot out a crank site called “money as wealth”, which is just a cover for money-as-debt crankishness. Especially that hilarious nonsense about the myth of Zimbabwe. Yes, it really was about the printing press run amok.
Now please: enough of your Zeitgeist nonsense.
[Y]
Although I said something to this effect before around page 5. No one listened 
yeah lol it seems people can’t quote properly.. when you quote somebody you need to do it from HIS original reply, or at least include his name with the quote, because by quoting somebody in somebody’s quote, you’ll end up with the latter guy’s name instead of the one you wanted to quote.
[B]
see? 
Part of your problem Tom is your terrible communication skills. I feel as if we are talking past each other because you are incapable adequately explaining your position. Include some economic ignorance on top of that and you just confuse the hell out of all of us.
Clearly a statement in desperation. An embarrassing mistake. Do you know how much literature, audio files, movies are on this site alone?
Again you slip back into circular reasoning.
Your: You cannot pay off dept ever
me: Why?
You: Just because thats how it works
me: Explain?
You: Because you cannot pay off dept ever
me: Wait didn’t you just say that?
you: The author seems to have no business experience
me: What?
You: You cannot pay off dept ever because it is all dept and everything is dept. Dept dept, interest dept, interest.
Me: errm… I give up…
Thats odd because it sounds right up your alley.
Tom I think at t his point you aren’t interested in educating anyone or proving your point. You just want to be right. The problem is you will never be right using your current tactic. Part of your problem is terrible miscommunication. You cannot explain your argument very well. It leads me to believe you have much ignorance in the way of economics and it confuses us when you make posts of that nature. Further more all your sources are more crankish sites, you cannot site any major publications that could compare to the Austrian’s school. I don’t think you realize how many books there are out there on Austrian Economists theory’s of money and credit alone.
The thread started out railing against interest but every supporting argument made against interest was a citation of the federal reserve system which is an argument against government intervention not interest. Early in the thread it was stated the problem is not interest but the state bank. The thread went on for eternity because of a failure early on to clearly articulate why the failure is with the state. The thread also failed to address the circle analogy because in a free market the circle has competition or a threat of competition.
Kind of like your reply above… “false”
That is no reply and indicates there is no point in conversing with you.
And then a discussion on the gold standard and how that would happen was had. And commodity money. And money in general.
There’s just no point in conversing with you should you deny those FACTS.
filc wrote:
The point here is that Money crank here, AKA TOm and his friends want to replace the Federal Reserve system with the Congressional Reserve system. Both systems operate identically the same and both will be corrupt.
____________________________________________________________________
Our privately owned and operated debt based monetary system is NOT identical to the government issuing money. If you don’t recognize the difference then you will never be able to understand economics. The issue of our age is WHO should create the money.
There is no reason for a national debt if government issues money and there is no reason for federal income tax. The benefits of creating money should go to the people instead of private banks. For example, instead of banks creating money for free on a fractional basis, the government could create the money and lend it to private banks, thus eliminating fractional lending while providing a revenue stream for the government.
Even a 1% “creation fee” would provide the government with enough revenue to end income taxes. The banks could mark up the money and lend it to the private sector.
Larry