twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Support that.
Impossible! The deficit is falling as well as unemployment Obama wrecking economy
- Thread starter ChesusRice
- Start date
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Why ask me when you are already answering it yourself???tokeperp said:
So if the bonds the Treasury traded the Fed for FRN's represent future tax payments, future production, current real assets.....you fail to see that bonding your check is the same thing? Bonding and exchanging for FRN's? Bonding by endorsing the use of elastic currency? You fail to see the connection to the FDR http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/8748/governmentbondsvoluntar.jpgtokeprep said:
letter where he explains he wants to get people to put their checks in these "new accounts"??
Is it mere coincidence that this new elastic currency has funded every subsequent unconstitutional war???
I should say so, when the Fed was established in 1913 it only had a 20 year charter.......wait why did all those people run to the bank in 1933 again??????????? Why didn't they get their gold? And this was still more stable than today.tokeprep said:
What links have you provided with any numbers sir? I provided you with treasury direct. Here is April 30, 2013.....http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/2013/opdm042013.pdftokeprep said:
Page 16 says what is not subject to the debt ceiling, that which cannot be held for reserves and fractionally lent......Page 1 table 2 shows total public debt outstanding less what cannot be added to the debt stands at :
14.293975 trillion
Statutory debt limit on that page is:
14.294 trillion as per 31 U.S.C. 3101(b). By Act of February 12, 2010, Public Law 111-139
So your saying out of 14.3 total public debt outstanding only 1 trillion is Fed Notes??? Do you mean only in physical form?
Because you're doing things like that to avoid my reasonable questions?
It has nothing to do with the legal argument you're trying to make. It's a total aside.
So your saying out of 14.3 total public debt outstanding only 1 trillion is Fed Notes??? Do you mean only in physical form?[/QUOTE]
You've been talking this whole time about physical Federal Reserve Notes, so obviously I mean in physical form. The statutes about physical notes apply to physical notes, not anything else. The debt is treasury securities the government owes, not currency.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
What is a total aside, your inability to distinguish inelastic lawful money between elastic Federal Reserve Notes?
I have been talking this whole time about Federal Reserve Notes in general, weather they exist in a checkbook, computer or physically. Defining them for you, showing you how they are produced from debt, carry interest, pointing out they are private credit......sourcing every statement I make.........most recently showing you how they are different from US notes that still circulate today as evidenced on the mspd every month.......
Perhaps your serving in Legislature is indicative of the fucked up situation we find ourselves in today that you claim is nonexistent.....I am very happy to be invested in a hedge fund against your complete ignorance of money, what it is and how it is defined. Funny how that works the more you screw up making your false assertions as all Keynesian before you the less your elastic money is worth....stretched until it breaks....never forget Austrians predicted this whole shebang.......Your continued assertions that Lawyers in black robes have the power to do anything but uphold congressional law are completely absurd. If you do not know what endorsement means I encourage you to visit your local Federal Repository and maybe look it up someday.
Distinguishing them is not at issue in interpreting these court decisions. Rickman has nothing to do with the Fed or a redemption demand; the sole relevant question in the case is whether Federal Reserve Notes are lawful money. The court says yes. I already quoted everything that was relevant in the case. All this stuff about endorsement isn't in the court's decision, you're just inventing it. Don't you see a problem with that? If the court didn't mention endorsement, why are you?
This is what you said Rickman says: "In Rickman the court held note for note EXCHANGE MADE THE NEW NOTES LAWFUL." But, again, this is the relevant portion of Rickman:
This does not say that "note for note exchange made the new notes lawful." It says Rickman got Federal Reserve Notes when he cashed his check and those notes were lawful money. Period. There is nothing here about Rickman trying to redeem his notes so that a United States Note will be removed from circulation, or however your theory goes.
It's laughable that you would claim to source every statement you make. "Sourcing" statements with unsourced material is not sourcing; making an argument and "sourcing" it with material that doesn't support your argument also isn't very meaningful.
Federal Reserve Notes are Federal Reserve Notes--printed banknotes. The Fed isn't collateralizing your checkbook balance with anything (excluding the portion in reserve). There's a lot more money in existence than there is banknotes.
No one's denying that United States Notes are outstanding--once again, you yourself acknowledged it when you mentioned people selling them on eBay. This is the same reason silver certificates and national bank notes are still outstanding--they're more valuable as collectibles than they would be redeemed for face value in Federal Reserve Notes. They're never going to be redeemed, they're always going to be outstanding, unless people make irrational decisions. That doesn't prove your case. Is the value of United States Notes in circulation changing from month to month?
You've not demonstrated how endorsement is relevant in any of the court decisions we've discussed. Until you do, the issue is meaningless. If it's as compelling as you make it out to be, I don't understand why you wouldn't set it out.
"Lawful money" includes Federal Reserve Notes. Period. There is no mechanism of exchanging your Federal Reserve Notes for old forms of currency, such as United States Notes, including effectively removing a United States Note from circulation such that your Federal Reserve Note is free of the supposed debt it represents. You have no law or court decision that says otherwise, and you only get there by expounding on and confusing what the courts actually said. Rickman above is the perfect example, saying none of what you claim it says.
If a Federal Reserve Note was money, then why call it a note? Any dumb-ass can tell you that a note is a PROMISE to PAY. Pay what? More promises.
It really doesn't get any simpler people. It says it is a NOTE on every single one of them. What is so hard to understand?
The VAST majority of US Currency exists in digital format on a hard drive somewhere. Actual US Currency constitutes less than 2% of US Dollars in the system.
I find it funny that every time Tokenprepforbankruptcy gets proven wrong he changes his tune to a completely different argument and then says you just weren't understanding him the first time. Its pretty much every other post.
Maybe change his name to Tokendance.
It really doesn't get any simpler people. It says it is a NOTE on every single one of them. What is so hard to understand?
The VAST majority of US Currency exists in digital format on a hard drive somewhere. Actual US Currency constitutes less than 2% of US Dollars in the system.
I find it funny that every time Tokenprepforbankruptcy gets proven wrong he changes his tune to a completely different argument and then says you just weren't understanding him the first time. Its pretty much every other post.
Maybe change his name to Tokendance.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
You've been talking this whole time about physical Federal Reserve Notes, so obviously I mean in physical form. The statutes about physical notes apply to physical notes, not anything else. The debt is treasury securities the government owes, not currency.[/QUOTE]
The drugs cartels in South America hold more than $1 trillion in Federal Reserve notes...
You havnt a clue what you're talking about bro.
It's undoubtedly money. I pay for everything I buy with it. Everyone here, no matter how much silver or gold they have, pays for everything with it. So saying it's not "money" because the word "note" is on the paper doesn't make much sense. If I can trade it for housing, food, and anything else I want, it's money. Period.
How are you getting 2%?
No one's proven me wrong about anything, and I've never changed to "a completely different argument" on anything. Where did you see otherwise? I've been here meeting every claim.
Indeed, there were at least four of you here spouting the Austrian talking points, and none of you could refute what I said about currency creation without debt. I think it's clear who was proven wrong.
There's $1.15 trillion in Federal Reserve Notes in the entire world right now. Please tell me where your assertion comes from so I can explain to you why you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Why should he explain how he got that you still haven't explained the trillion outstanding??? Double standard.
I explained it, and you confirmed my explanation.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Over 1 trillion of those have been spent for Nixion's war on drugs. You are an idiot.
I'm sorry, I didn't see your other post. http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_12773.htm.
You explained what and I confirmed what explanation? I recall you walking through my explanation of how the debt was created and then extinguished, leaving currency offset by nothing, but then you declared that the debt actually did still exist since the bills were nothing that could be traded for something. Except where's the borrowing and there interest then? There is none. Sorry if you meant something else.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
You pay for nothing in allodium with them, you simply discharge debt with them.
If a prostitute trades sex for food and shelter is that money?
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
That is approximately worthless data, sort of insulting.
Apparently you're the idiot if you're incapable of distinguishing between a Federal Reserve Note, a physical piece of paper, and a number in a database. This whole discussion about notes is about the pieces of paper, not electronic debits and credits. All this talk of redemption and collateralization applies to the physical notes, not the electronic numbers.
You can take your Federal Reserve Note to the treasury and demand that they trade you for equivalent value in Federal Reserve Notes. You cannot take your bank statement to the treasury and demand redemption in anything.
Really? Because I own this laptop. It's mine. There never was a debt when I bought it: I handed them cash and they handed me the computer. You can call this discharging debt if you mean that I owed a payment, but a payment in gold coins would be discharging debt in exactly the same sense.
I'm not limited to purchasing food and shelter with my Federal Reserve Notes. I can buy anything.
And what data do you have? None?
Interestingly, when the data supposedly supported the claims you were trying to make about notes being redeemable for the collateral, you're happy to reference the same data you question now.
Try telling someone in China that they must sell you something for your FR Note. Go ahead and tell me how its money again. Must be like a sickness with you to FAIL so hard and so often. If it were money it would have value anywhere in the world. The fact that the Dollar is not universally accepted by nearly everyone everywhere as money proves you 100% WRONG!! WRONG!! Get it? You are WRONG!!! Don't try to change your argument after realizing how WRONG you are.
m0/m2 NOt real hard to figure it out, you should try math and Google sometime, they will definitely help your internet experience.
Every dollar in the system has a certain amount of interest attached to it, we already proved this earlier, you saying we didn't does not invalidate that fact. Playing that game makes you look even more desperate, stop trying.
If you're using your own definition of "money." The fact that British money is accepted in Great Britain and that Chinese money is accepted in China doesn't mean that they aren't money because they aren't accepted in the United States. Indeed, since I can trade my Federal Reserve Note for Chinese currency and then use that currency to buy things in China, obviously my Federal Reserve Note does have value.
You are wrong, wrong, wrong. If the dollar had no value the Chinese wouldn't be shipping us hundreds of billions of dollars worth of stuff.
See, that's what I immediately looked at, except my M2 was only about $10 trillion. $1 trillion / $10 trillion = 10%, not 2%.
It was not proved. For the 50th time, I gave three explanations of how currency can be created without debt and none of them were refuted. No one was able to show where the interest would be. The fact that you declare the interest is there doesn't make it so.
Yes it does. go along and play now little boy.
The fact that CURRENCIES ( Not money) have been made legal tender does not give it the magical property of being MONEY. Money is a store of value, currencies are not. Money is fungible, currency is not. Money is divisible, currency is not, Money is universally accepted, currency is not.
See how wrong you are?
You haven't proved anything , let alone something 50 times.