this checkbook money, is it dollars or dubloons?
if dollars are fiat then your answer is there.
plus you recognise all money is fiat in the USA,(your words!!!) therefore by syllogism, credit money is fiat money, or else it is not money.
There are plenty. Stick around.
Yes he did indulge, but don’t discount the factual information contained within, just the fictional nonsense. You know the parts when he claims frogs come from the rain.
this checkbook money, is it dollars or dubloons?
if dollars are fiat then your answer is there.
plus you recognise all money is fiat in the USA,(your words!!!) therefore by syllogism, credit money is fiat money, or else it is not money.
There is no statutory definition of the dollar and credit is not money but the banking system has tricked the people into believing that it is money, but credit is what we use for our meduim of exchange.
You mean like credit
Credit is not called money by law, but the banks have tricked the people into believing that it is money. It’s just a recorded entry of what the bank owes you.
Law doesn’t make money.
I can pay taxes with my discover card, I can only pay taxes with what the law calls money. Hmm money that I borrow to pay money that owe and it is accepted as money. What am I missing here?
Where do you think all our money comes from? 100% of it comes into circulation as an interest bearing loan from a private commercial bank. And yes the IRS will take credit cards.
cause they are dollars right?
you know what a dollar is don’t you?
Semantical argument A and ultimately pointless like most of the threads you’ve posted lately.
B are you arguing that we should not have banks? Don’t be an aimless zealot please.
NirgrahamUK, you missed the part in school where they taught us about bank credit changing into dollars. When you cash out bank credit money and get dollar money instead a magical hamster wizard sits on the other side of the teller and magically turns your check into new dollars. It cannot operate without that magical wizard hamster though and all our financial crises can be pegged to the fact that there is a huge shortage of hamster wizards. Obviously Tom left that part out.
When will you stop arguing semantics and actually present a case. Here are some questions I have for you.
A) Whats your definition of a good economy
B) Whats your definition of a sound monetary system
C) For all practical purposes in what difference do bank credit and supposed “fiat money” effect the economy. Would it be better if we all had paper dollars or all had supposed “bank credit”.
D) Why can’t someone pay a service to store their dollars? Upon doing so why does his stored money magically become credit? Assuming you go to an honest bank where your paper notes are not lent out.
E) Are there some things I cannot buy with dollars but can buy with credit? Please explain where the utility purpose of the two are different.
How about you give me the statutory definition of the dollar? Byron Dale sued the Federal Reserve Bank of Minnesapolis and they admited in public record that there is no statutory definition of the dollar, in which case the fed used that to keep from paying on their notes because he sought a claim for which there is no relief.
Who ever said anything about not having banks? Where did you come to that conclusion? The only thing I think is that banks should have to operate in a fair, honest and just manner, instead of how they operate now by creating all of our medium of exchange as interest bearing loans designed to steal all the property away from all of the people who worked hard for it.
An ecomony based on production, not what is owed to the banking system. I want the principles of gold and silver applied to what we use for money to restore it to an honest medium of exchange, not a system of theft be deception. I want an economy where the producers get the benifit of the money, not the money changers.
A monetary system all based on wealth and SPENT into circulation instead of loaned into circulation as a tool for theft by deception. The principles of gold/silver applied to our current monetary system all based on wealth with no debt. The exact principles that gold/silver functioned under. Correct me if i’m wrong, but doesn’t it take three things combined at once to create wealth. The people have to combine the raw resources of the earth with their labor and knowledge for all wealth to be created. That is exactly what the people did with gold and silver and it all came into circulation as a wealth to the people instead of an interest bearing debt owed to the banking system who didn’t have anything in the first place.
The fiat dollars have no effect on the economy at all. What affects our economy is the check book entry (where money is created). In order for the fiat paper currency to move into circulation a person has to draw down on their checking account (no change in money supply). I think we would all be better off if we applied the principles of gold/silver to our current monetary system and restored it to a monetary system designed to benifit the people, instead of only benifiting the banking system who owns all the money all the time.
Banks don’t lend out paper notes. Banks only allow paper notes to go into circulation after you draw down on your checking account. In order for there to be any money in that checking account either you, or someone else, had to sign a promissory note and go into debt. People can pay a service to store their dollars at the bank, they do it all the time. All bank deposits are a form of credit, bascially they represent amounts owed by banks to depositors… (federal reserve purposes and functions 3rd edition).
The true money in our system is bank credit and through common acceptance they are called dollars. We can clearly see that by looking around us at any place we shop. Dollars in our modern money system do not consist of any known chemical substance (hence they are just numbers) but you can purchase anything in the world with those numbers. It’s probably the greatest form of money ever invented, the problem is that our money system has been debauched (made corrupt and immoral) and the only way you can debauch a money system is to switch it from an evidence of wealth (moves into circulation as a representation of wealth) to an evidence of indebtiness (what you owe). It matters not what is used for money but the principles under which it functioned. This is why gold/silver worked as a money that benifited the people, the only problem was that there never has been enough of it to work as a general medium of exchange. If there would have been enough nobody would have started borrowing promises to pay from the goldsmiths and the money system of the world today would be vastly different and we wouldn’t have a 57 trillion dollar interest bearing debt here in America.
There has ALWAYS been enough gold and silver to function as a medium of exchange for the market. For governments…no. So please disabuse yourself of your money-as-debt crankishness.
If there would have been enough gold/silver they why did the people ever have to borrow from the goldsmith in the first place? The goldsmiths (basically everyone says this is how fractional reserve lending got started) expanded the money supply by X times the actual amount of gold to keep up with mans ability to produce. Once the goldsmith figured out that the people preffered the paper over the gold, and the people rarely demanded the gold, he knew he had the keys to the kingdom. “Then, bankers discovered that they could make loans merely by giving their promises to pay, or bank notes, to borrowers. In this way, banks began to create money. More notes could be issued than the gold and coin on hand because only a portion of the notes outstanding would be presented for payment at any one time. Enough metallic money had to be kept on hand, of course, to redeem whatever volume of notes was presented for payment.” -Modern Money Mechanics. What they didn’t say in this statement is that the people prefferred the paper over the gold otherwise the people would have wanted to borrow the gold and not the paper.
With every new statement you make you continue to flash us with your naked economic ignorance. Lending money is a legitimate market function, just as selling banana’s. Someone has already responded to you on another thread regarding this. It has to do with time-preferences and future speculation.
Just because the gold smith was dishonest doesn’t mean the notes themselves were evil or in-efficient. This is like blaming gunshot wounds on guns and not on the individual people who fired the shot.
A good banker has a market incentive for keeping his bank solvent. A banker who lends out too much is more likely to go insolvent and his customers may decide to change to a more secure bank.
People preferred the gold, and they preferred it to be secure. The paper was a representation of the gold. It wasn’t that gold went away and fiat came into existence. People wanted their assets secured and they were willing to pay a banker to do that for them. Just because some bankers historically were dishonest does not mean that this is how the system works by default. Your coming to illogical conclusions.
Oh I got it. The people had to much gold and silver as money so what they had to do was borrow promises to pay more of it and pay interest on it to someone who didn’t have enough of it to honor all the their promises to pay. I’m so glad you straighted that out for me. Thanks. I’m going over to the bank now to get a big fat loan so I can borrow myself out of debt. Freedom is being permanantly indebted to someone else.
Another non-sequitur response. Can this be considered rambling?
What if the unit of exchange was fish?
Do us all a favor. Read a book. Look this one has pictures for you!
Then if the people went out and caught those fish and moved them into circulation as a wealth we would have a wealth based medium of exchange, but I highly doubt people would want to use fish for money, which would prove that fish is not the best form of money.