To the same extent that the $1 trillion platinum coin is "ready for issue right now." Irrelevant. Your claim was that redeeming a Federal Reserve Note removes a United States Note from circulation, which is obviously ludicrous.
Impossible! The deficit is falling as well as unemployment Obama wrecking economy
- Thread starter ChesusRice
- Start date
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
"It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the—if he—if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement"~can't resist~ Well that all depends now. cn
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Oh shit now they can be issued, how does it feel to be blatantly wrong?
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Lol the difference is cn is just funning, I am not redefining the word seems.
I never said I don't understand the difference between US greenbacks and treasury notes.
The Redemption was a side note of completely obliterating your silly notion that Federal Reserve Notes contain no debt or interest.
Your "where's the inflation" garbage got the smack down and now you are trying to save face.......very understandable, please carry on.
I never said I don't understand the difference between US greenbacks and treasury notes.
The Redemption was a side note of completely obliterating your silly notion that Federal Reserve Notes contain no debt or interest.
Your "where's the inflation" garbage got the smack down and now you are trying to save face.......very understandable, please carry on.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
WTF are you even talking about? Do you even know anymore?
Please provide a link to the 100+ year old law that authorizes the $1 trillion platinum coin.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
~can't resist~ Well that all depends now. cn
The funny thing is I am going to have to look this up, I reckon it has to do with Monica?
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Tangentially. i was stunned that at the time, the impeachment question was being spun to be about sex. I always thought it was about perjury. Maybe it depends on the meaning of perj ... oh look! Guardrails!! cn
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
At $1454 an ounce, that'd be a BIG fucking coin.
I never said they couldn't be issued. I've just asked so what. Like I keep repeating, the treasury has the authority to issue a $1 trillion platinum coin. Meaningful? Nope.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
lmao I just assumed it was a big cover up for something else! Don't remember any specifics tho except a jizz dress.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
It better have an authorizing statute too. I suppose our purchasing power would have to increase big time to need such a large denomination haha.
You never provided me with any links substantiating your claims about redemption or United States Notes, even though I begged for them...
I never said it was 100 years old, but here's the statute, 31 USC § 5112:
Silver and gold are quite specifically bounded, by comparison, with issues having limited face values or quantities. Thus the treasury could mint a $1 trillion platinum coin, deposit it with the Fed, and have $1 trillion to spent. Just like it could issue United States Notes. The fact that authority legally exists does not mean it is actually utilized, that's my point.
It's all just funning.
I actually don't think I'm redefining the word anyway. So you didn't say they "were the same," you said they "seem" the same. This means based on what you looked at, you thought they were the same, or that you got the impression they were indeed the same, as per your definition. The fact that you couched with "seems" doesn't mean that you didn't make the claim, only that you were smart enough not to express absolute uncertainty. Indeed, wasn't I saying they weren't the same, and wasn't the substance of your reply "No, actually they do seem to be the same: [link intended to prove statement]"?
The redemption discussion was silly because it was baseless. This discourse has proven that! The original point was indeed that Federal Reserve Notes could exist without any debt underlying them, and also that even if something is formally structured as a debt, that structuring can be functionally irrelevant. The "Every dollar represents a loan with interest spiel!" is nonsense, since every dollar actually just represents a government command.
The Fed owns about $3 trillion in government securities. The interest payments go to the treasury (about $90 billion last year, for an average yield of 3%), which means the treasury doesn't effectively pay interest. Likewise, if the Fed doesn't delete the funds it used to create the bonds after they've matured, the treasury gets to collect the principal as well. Currency without debt! Yeah, yeah, the Fed "lent" the money and the treasury "paid interest," fair enough, but in the same sense that a "corporation" is a "person." Obviously a corporation is not a person, we just pretend that it is; similarly, the Fed doesn't necessarily lend money to the treasury and doesn't actually collect interest, we just pretend that it does.
Why doesn't the treasury just print and spend the money then, sparing us this legal fiction? Again, the Fed is an independent central bank, not subject to the whims of the treasury--its existence necessitates the legal fiction. If the Fed deletes the $100 it gets from a maturing government bond, the treasury is just borrowing and paying back money, effectively interest-free (the interest rate isn't about profit for the Fed, it's just a monetary policy tool that they use to affect all other interest rates--that's why Fed loans to the treasury are structured as interest-bearing loans even though the interest doesn't substantively exist). The Fed has the discretion to delete the $100, which is what makes it a "loan"--it's not necessarily the government's money, if it gets deleted at maturity. The treasury, alternatively, if it printed and spent $100, has made a permanent commitment; that $100 is in circulation forever. You could shred your tax revenue to remove currency from circulation, I suppose, but that sounds exceedingly problematic to me.
Of course it didn't. Show me an example!
The fact that the magic inflation unicorn appeared means surprisingly little to my quantitative mind. Look, look at the unicorn! Look at him! Why am I looking at a magic unicorn instead of looking at some facts?
The only valid inflation point anyone has is about fixed incomes, because it's a very serious harm to some of the most vulnerable people, and even then we end up in a very peculiar place. Most people on "fixed incomes" are drawing them from the government. The government funds those programs with borrowing, which causes inflation, so presumably the programs couldn't exist in a system with "constitutional money" (you and others have made this suggestion in this thread). And yet the indictment against inflation is that it makes living harder for people who couldn't and wouldn't otherwise be getting any federal dollars at all?
(I don't consider erosion of savings to be meaningful since I think the inflation rate, so long as it's not inordinately high, is relatively easy to beat; you actually can beat the present inflation rate with a CD, for example. With a stable dollar, it's more difficult to increase your savings, because there are fewer investment opportunities available and substantially less wealth being created. Surely this is worthy of some consideration. Life really sucked when that dollar was stable, and arguably central banking and credit is what has fueled this amazing century of innovation and economic development.
I only care about beating the headline inflation rate because I think it only makes sense to measure the whole basket; people don't spend their savings on just one, two, or three things. To meaningfully measure the value of savings, you must measure what people actually buy with their savings and track the prices increases of those items actually purchased. The fact that one individual uses all of his savings to buy food is not representative of all other individuals, so the inflation rate of food cannot possibly be the average inflation rate experienced by the population.)
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
blaze' blaze' this thread speaks volumes for itself, your final thoughts and opinions at this juncture do nothing to change the content....snoochie boochies
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
The substance of my reply was they are not technically the same, but basically the same. They bear no interest, and cannot serve as reserves, which is the difference between them and Fed Notes......Coincidentally (pun intended) coins serve the same purpose. Notice the Sacajawea Dollar does not say Federal Reserve Token anywhere on it.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
This is just getting ridiculous...........................................
tokeprep said:
[URL said:http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lawfulmoney.asp[/URL]]
[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#04558B !important]0
Lawful Money
Filed Under » Government Bond, T-bonds, T-notes
Definition of 'Lawful Money'
Any form of currency issued by the United States Treasury and not the Federal Reserve System, including gold and silver coins, Treasury notes, and Treasury bonds. Lawful money stands in contrast to fiat money, to which the government assigns value although it has no intrinsic value of its own and is not backed by reserves. Fiat money includes legal tender such as paper money, checks, drafts and bank notes.
Also known as "specie", which means "in actual form."
Investopedia explains 'Lawful Money'
Oddly enough, the dollar bills that we carry around in our wallets are not considered lawful money. The notation on the bottom of a U.S. dollar bill reads "Legal Tender for All Debts, Public and Private", and is issued by the U.S. Federal Reserve, not the U.S. Treasury. Legal tender can be exchanged for an equivalent amount of lawful money, but effects such as inflation can change the value of fiat
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
It's like a square and a rectangle................one is itself and the other; the other is itself and not the other.
Straight from FDR if you prefer.........middle paragraph, right page beginning with "Recognized Government bonds"........:
Straight from FDR if you prefer.........middle paragraph, right page beginning with "Recognized Government bonds"........:
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
The magic unicorn fairy appears when wealth is being destroyed by those that contribute nothing to production. Milk was 3 dollars and I made 3 per hour. I now make 100 per hour and milk is 100 dollars.........my mind is quantitative everything is normal lmfao
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/2011/opdm062011.pdf
from page 11:
Other Debt:
Not Subject to the Statutory Debt Limit:
United States Notes..................................................................................................13 239
National and Federal Reserve Bank Notes assumed by the United States on deposit of lawful money for their retirement........................................................................................14 65
Silver Certificates (Act of June 24, 1967).........................................................................................................................15 172
Other............................................................................................................................................
from page 11:
Other Debt:
Not Subject to the Statutory Debt Limit:
United States Notes..................................................................................................13 239
National and Federal Reserve Bank Notes assumed by the United States on deposit of lawful money for their retirement........................................................................................14 65
Silver Certificates (Act of June 24, 1967).........................................................................................................................15 172
Other............................................................................................................................................