If I've only been here for days, how would I notice that? I've seen you post more than once a week often.
The Fed is evil, 9/11 truth, and so on.
Impossible! The deficit is falling as well as unemployment Obama wrecking economy
- Thread starter ChesusRice
- Start date
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Gold has a value because it is an elemental metal with industrial properties, a high lustre and has always historically been used as money.
Currency is based on debt.
That's where the "magic money" comes from, when it's printed/created on a computer by a central bank it's loaned to (eventually) go into circulation.
It has no intrinsic value whatsoever, it can simply be made (and for your information, has been nearly continuously for 5 years).
The fact that you can create additional currency but cannot create additional gold does not mean that currency has no value. So long as we all agree it has value--just as people historically agreed gold had value--that's all that matters. Gold would have no value if we had no reason to value it; currency would have no value if we had no reason to value it. Alas, we have reason to value both.
And once again, currency does not have to be loaned to go into circulation. You can repeat it all you want--it just means you don't understand the debt monetization process you keep referencing. The purpose of an independent central bank is to deprive politicians of the power to print money to solve fiscal problems.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Why don't we just use a one world currency then eh fella? Fuck it let's just get it out in the open you are advocating the re-distribution of wealth through non-market forces.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
lol oh shit now it "seems" lol btw the whole world uses the uniform commercial code and all the definitions I presented to you...........which is why your pounds and yen get transferred to FRN's quickly with you thinking no value is lost.
You need only look at the Euro to answer that question. They combined a couple dozen countries together under a common monetary policy and it was a disaster, with the Euro still threatening to unravel.
Conversion is good because it enables currencies to be relatively valued based on market realities.
No, I'm advocating the creation of wealth and the spurring of innovation for the benefit of all. Where you think that only one house should be built, I think ten should be built. While building ten houses will cause more inflation than building one house would have, society ends up with nine extra houses.
The Austrians don't want the nine extra houses. They'd much rather have their little agrarian paradises, with the city folk bank speculators banished to irrelevance.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
The Austrians realize the 9 extra houses were being built before the central bank existed, including the Nth iteration it is in now. They also realize that the 9 xtra houses being built today are from artificial market that only thrive in corruption. You seem the think the world is made of fairies and rainbows; a place where you are entitled to a loan.
The Uniform Commercial Code is American state law for domestic transactions; it isn't used by "the whole world." International commercial law actually differs substantially from the American UCC.The negotiable instruments part of the UCC expressly states that it's not applicable to money; it further states that federal law overrides the code where the two are inconsistent, expressly incorporating regulations issued by the Fed.
The legal regime for international payments is set out in international agreements, not in American domestic law. It would make no sense to reference UCC definitions of words that are separately defined in such international agreements.
How can you possibly say that? If there's only one gold coin, how do you get ten houses out of it instead of one? Fractional reserve banking enables production by creating credit; Austrians despise credit.
Most of the last 20 pages has been devoted solely to parsing language and sparring over what words mean. You can't convince people who won't even argue from what they introduce as their own source material, as reflected in the fanciful imaginings about possible meanings of court cases and statutes that have absolutely no basis in the very brief text that's available in its entirety to both of us. Such an outcome is the natural consequence of amateurs thinking they can understand the law. Congress doesn't even understand the law; every congressman gets a big staff, every committee gets a huge staff, and on top of it all congress has additional myriad departments of professional staff helping with the real work. Not only does congress have its legions of staff--friendly lobbyists are also happy to make frequent contributions in furtherance of our well-being, doing the American people the great favor of "educating" our representatives on important issues and writing possible "drafts" of legislation. These people do all of the work, and it takes all of them to collectively make sense of the law.
These imaginings, of course, are not original (I'm not saying the original poster copied it straight off a tax protestor web site, just that the influence was obviously present in whatever his source was). Most of the past 20 pages consists of regurgitated tax protestor arguments constructed by crackpots who selectively quote statutes, court cases, and other random sources of law to assert that there is some parallel system of lawful money in existence right now. The critical belief of these faithful is that existing Federal Reserve Notes can be redeemed for this magical lawful money, which has the cleansing power to eliminate some measure of fractional reserve credit. According to the great legal scholars who engineered these silly theories, the magic wash that eliminates fractional reserve credit also transforms the currency such that it is no longer taxable income. The last part hasn't come up in this thread, but everything else has. All of it bullshit, none of it supported by any of the source material.
On the broader issue of whether Federal Reserve Notes all constitute ever-swelling debt: that's obviously false as well. The problem with printing money is that it never has to be repaid, not that it has to someday be repaid with interest (which no one can substantiate--I've been begging and begging to no avail). The issue is confused by the fact that banknotes used to actually be payable obligations, which means that all of the language surrounding the notes is phrased in such terms. The fact that the language was never "updated" supposedly proves that banknotes still represent some underlying obligation that must be paid.
The real problem is just that central banking is an exceedingly complicated topic that most people on both sides don't understand. The real and insightful discussion we could and should be having is instead consumed with these basic debates over silly notions that are totally unnecessary to advancing the case that our Austrian friends want to advance. The kind of fights we're having are equivalent to those that would be had if I said things like "$1 now buys just as much as $1 in 1900." Such asinine, dunce-cap-worthy bullshit would be rightfully dismissed with incomparable haste. But since we have a crowd advocating the minority views that no one in the real world takes seriously, congratulating and patting each other on the back even when the inconsistencies should be readily apparent, and just one who stands up for mainstream economics and reality--wholeheartedly embraced by every single wealthy and successful country in the world today--I'm the one who's batshit crazy and has not a clue what he's talking about. The fact that no one in the world embraces their lunacy is all the evidence you should need to pronounce it modern quackery. Oh yes, that's right. The ignorant functionaries who have enabled the world to operate on the fractional reserve standard just don't realize that their strings are being pulled by the evil banking cabal.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
lol fuck no I must admit to looping more than I like, just jump on in its the same over and over.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Dude wake up and read I said AND the definitions I showed you.........the ucc is of course used world wide in shipping vessels all over the world.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
That would be when production increases to the point of surplus overload....anyone with a part time job could afford most anything......idealistically speaking of course, and your gold coin will buy way more than today. Even a house, especially if you don't mind chipping in on the labor, just like today.
Why would you mention the UCC if it had no relation to those definitions? You haven't brought it up before.
The UCC can be used internationally, but it's not the default law for international shipments of goods. There are international agreements that usually take precedence, and those overtake state law. Of course, our context is international payments and currency conversions, not shipping vessels.
How would you get those production increases? Do you deny that credit stimulates production that otherwise could not take place? If you only have enough capital to build one house, versus building ten houses with the same capital, how can you end up with more production? I would really love to know.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
tokeprep said:
You are absolutley lying. You can lump shit into Keyensian/Austrian all day this is an economic discussion but you really are crossing the line by referencing me in the third person like that. You are the only one that mentioned tax protester arguments. (You can't reference me in the third person and "not say" shit in quotes like that) it literally means you did say it. Everything I posted was linked to where it came from. That makes you an incredible douche. You can say whatever about the source material as long as you don't link me to other shit I am not invloved in.
You are pissed because you fancy yourself some sort of legal savant. You fail miserably. Go back and look at the credentials I presented to you they still apply only now it consists of cheese joints. The law is for everyone which is why Federal Repository's are public.
You telling someone else I did not argue from the source material I delivered to you that you personally asked me for makes you a seriously delusional person, a liar and just a childish name caller.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Oh my god in what jack fuck twilight zone are we in now where your fucking ass was not just talking about exchanges of currency between nations. This is the exact bullshit everyone here seems to be tired of. You are incapable of linear thought....It is OK to loop around the Modules once in a while but wtf is with your not being able to go from point to point productively. Perhaps this is why you fancy capital based in theory and not production.
You've spoken warmly of ideas from G. Edward Griffin and David Icke. Tax protestor universe isn't very far away, even if you yourself don't visit it. I don't think you came up with these statutes and cases from scratch given how thoroughly you crossed into the existing argument, especially since the words of your source material also wasn't matching up the assertions you made about it.
I fancy myself capable of reading without also reading extra words that aren't there; I fancy myself capable of recognizing reality instead of blissfully ignoring it in order to maintain some absurd claim.
You didn't. I quoted your source material and you can't show us where it says what you claim it says. Indeed, just recently you launched into some diatribe about endorsement--which the court opinion at issue said nothing about--in order to expound on what the court actually said, supposedly, and fit it into your lawful money fantasy. You wouldn't need to spend so much time telling us what the courts meant if you would bother to just quote what the courts said, because that typically precludes the former.