It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How Big Is the U.S. Debt?- Not What You Expect!

page: 4
26
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 

Errr, because he violated the opening tenets of the US Constitution by invading the States long before the greenback came into existence ... ie, treason.

wrong, it was created to settle the debts of the civil war (which should have never happened)
so, if it wasn't debt based, what was it based on?

fyi - by mid-1864 that same greenback was valued at a mere 35 cents worth of gold.

source on February 25, 1862, the Legal Tender Act empowered the Secretary of the Treasury to issue paper money ("greenbacks") that were not immediately redeemable in gold or silver.
this is not the same as "not backed by gold" ... this is known as "suspension of specie payment".


The National Currency Acts of 1863 and 1864 created a system of nationally chartered banks that could issue bank notes supplied to them by the new Comptroller of the Currency, ---> notice, that doesn't say Congress --- and a 10 percent tax was placed on state bank notes to drive them out of business and establish a federal monetary monopoly. The government's paper money flooded the banks so that by July 1864 greenback dollars were worth a mere 35 cents in gold. --- snip --- In What Has Government Done to Our Money? Murray Rothbard explained the significance of the phrase, "suspension of specie payment." This explanation clarifies just what it was that Lincoln and the Whigs (and later the Republicans) were fighting so vigorously for.

The bluntest way for government to foster inflation . . . is to grant the banks the special privilege of refusing to pay their obligations, while yet continuing in their operation. While everyone else must pay their debts or go bankrupt, the banks are permitted to refuse redemption of their receipts, at the same time forcing their own debtors to pay when their loans fall due. The usual name for this is a "suspension of specie payments." A more accurate name would be "license for theft," for what else can we call a government permission to continue in business without fulfilling one's contract?



What I don't agree with you about is the inherent faults in fiat money, history has shown that it can work just fine if the quantity is properly controlled, and the money supply isn't continuously inflated until the value of each note becomes essentially worthless.
link please ? at what time in history did this work as you've described ??
the main point i'm arguing here is "properly controlled, and the money supply isn't continuously inflated until the value of each note becomes essentially worthless."
THAT is the job of the Fed Reserve so what is your point here other than they are a complete failure to the people they are supposed to serve ??
the Fed creates fiat currency, not money.
the Fed manipulates the quantity of fiat currency.
the Fed profits on the debt-based fiat currency it sells.
the Fed isn't quasi government anything regardless of your insistence otherwise.
the Fed, while governed, is owned and has evolved into a corporation like any other.
[the ATS search feature will allude to many threads on the subject]
the Fed and Ted are two hands of the same monster.


I never said the FR Notes "rescued" the greenback ---> the FED (banking cartel) then swooped in and "saved" the nation, with the Federal Reserve Note, a debt-based currency that the Government essentially had no control over.
not exactly word for word, but you certainly did --> bold above.

i don't do this back and forth stuff and you are simply ignoring the obvious, that any fiat currency is debt-based / as was the greenback --> specie payment, remember ??
a run on the banks would be as fruitless as fishing for the Alaskan Fur Fish.

you really need to get a grasp on your time frames, a lot happens in 10yrs.
and in this case, you're collating 50 odd yrs into some condensed crap that just won't flush.
we're discussing the 1850s & 60s and you're quoting 1895 ?? why?

low on characters and time, will address more laters.




posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 



it was created to settle the debts of the civil war (which should have never happened)
so, if it wasn't debt based, what was it based on?
Yes, it was created to fund the war, because the banks weren't willing to loan the US money at a reasonable rate of interest. However, even after the war, numerous economists argued for the continued use of the greenback because it was working so well. It wasn't based on anything at all, it was a simple Government issued fiat money. Federal Reserve notes are "backed by debt" which is owed to the FED, but it is still basically a fiat money, I agree. Greenbacks weren't owed to anyone or backed by anything at all (not even debt), they were issued directly to the people without being debt-based and without interest to be payed back.


fyi - by mid-1864 that same greenback was valued at a mere 35 cents worth of gold.
The greenback wasn't intended to be linked to gold, and as the money supply was increased to a reasonable volume the value of each note would obviously be expected to decrease. However, what you are ignoring is that if the greenbacks remained in circulation and no more of them were printed after the volume reached a nice amount, then they would have held their value perfectly well. Only when more are injected into the money supply do the rest become worth less.



What I don't agree with you about is the inherent faults in fiat money, history has shown that it can work just fine if the quantity is properly controlled, and the money supply isn't continuously inflated until the value of each note becomes essentially worthless.
link please ? at what time in history did this work as you've described ??
Perhaps you might want to watch The Secret of Oz (rated best doco of 2011). It provides numerous examples of how well fiat money can work when handled properly, like for example the Roman Republic.


the Fed creates fiat currency, not money.
the Fed manipulates the quantity of fiat currency.
the Fed profits on the debt-based fiat currency it sells.
the Fed isn't quasi government anything regardless of your insistence otherwise.
the Fed, while governed, is owned and has evolved into a corporation like any other.
I never argued against those things except about the FED being quasi-government. I once believed it was an entirely private corporation exactly like you do, I even argued it was such, but I have since been put in my place by those willing to present the actual facts of the matter rather than conspiracy nonsense.



I never said the FR Notes "rescued" the greenback ---> the FED (banking cartel) then swooped in and "saved" the nation, with the Federal Reserve Note, a debt-based currency that the Government essentially had no control over.
not exactly word for word, but you certainly did --> bold above.
I clearly said they saved the nation (sarcasm), they did not rescue the greenback, they phased it out and replaced it with their god damn Federal Reserve Note. Please try to pay attention and stop twisting the argument into nonsensical crap.

Also, we might want to continue this debate on my thread about fiat money because we are going fairly off topic now.
edit on 1-3-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


I just wanted to address this quote in a separate post because it's not really related to what we were talking about.

Errr, because he violated the opening tenets of the US Constitution by invading the States long
As you may be aware by now, I am not a US citizen, and I'm not fully aware of why the civil war was fought. But from what I can see, Lincoln was against slavery and wanted to make it illegal on a national basis, however many people thought that violated the constitution because it should be up to states to decide that? And I assume you are promoting the states right to accept slavery as a legal practice? I'm sorry buddy, but I'm pretty sure slavery violates the constitution in so many ways I can't even count them. Not to mention it violates basic human rights and is completely unethical. Some things simply need to be illegal on a nation scale, and even a world wide scale... because he wanted that did not make him a 'treasonous traitor'.
edit on 1-3-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


I am not trying to defend the actions of the FED, but it is a quasi-government entity
good, i don't believe there is any defense for their actions over the years. however, the definition of quasi is debatable.
qua·si
adj \ˈkwā-ˌzī, -ˌsī; ˈkwä-zē, -sē\
Definition of QUASI
1: having some resemblance usually by possession of certain attributes
2: having a legal status only by operation or construction of law and without reference to intent

now perhaps, definition #2 could be loosely interpreted in such that without the construct of law, the Fed couldn't exist, however, it was initiated with specific intent as outlined in the Act itself.
other than this possible use of the word, the FR isn't quasi anything. it is a private corporation with a board just as any other.

so Congress appoints board members, big deal.
Congress does not oversee operations, Congress does not manipulate the supply, Congress does not demand accountability, Congress doesn't even have access to the daily operations nor does it regulate it in any way, shape or form.


fiat money = tokens of exchange.

agreed but tokens are for the boardwalk and video games. It is not valid trade.
trade = substance for substance NOT substance for imagination.
IF the fiat currency maintained value, it could be considered a valued token of exchange, however, it has lost such a value.
Since it's intrinsic value = debt, how do you see that as a benefit?

if you think my 1st hand experience is dismissible, think again.
and, while i may or may not have a god-like understanding of money, we're aren't talking about money, we're discussing currency, there is a definite difference and i'm offended that you would stoop to a personal attack to make a false point.


You are so caught up in your crusade against fiat money that you are mixing it up with an inflationary debt-based currency and totally overlooking the true cause of the economic problems facing the United States. You are regurgitating the same old thing that many conspiracy theorists claim without truly knowing the "finer points".
aside from who knows the finer points of this situation, i happen to agree with this summary

(from same link, pvs post)

"The result of this legislation," he said, "is utterly to destroy the rights of the states. It is asserting a power which if carried out to its logical result would enable the national Congress to destroy every institution of the States and cause all power to be consolidated and concentrated here [in Washington, D.C.]. --- Lasarus Powell

if you think i'm crusading against fiat currency, what are you doing? crusading for it?
why would you want to build upon a false foundation?


Ummmm, you keep track of the notes in circulation and the denominations of said notes, it's simple math really. All that is required is a sufficient quantity and a sufficient granularity of the money supply.

granularity ??? are you serious?
for those who don't know, that's akin to creative bookkeeping and i think that's pretty much what's brought us to this point in time.
although, that was a nice long-arm reach for the stars.


The greenback was issued by the Government directly to the people with no interest attached, THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT.
ummm, this point is well-received but it doesn't change the fact that production was not enough to satiate the needs of the people or the government.


link 1863, nearly there, Lincoln needed just a bit more money to win the war, and seeing him in this vulnerable state, and knowing that the president could not get the congressional authority to issue more greenbacks, the money changers proposed the passing of the National Bank Act. The act went through. From this point on the entire US money supply would be created out of debt by bankers buying US government bonds and issuing them from reserves for bank notes.
The greenbacks continued to be in circulation until 1994, their numbers were not increased but in fact decreased. "In numerous years following the war, the Federal Government ran a heavy surplus. It could not (however) pay off its debt, retire its securities, because to do so meant there would be no bonds to back the national bank notes (which were interest-based). To pay off the debt was to destroy the money supply."

as i've said over and over, the greenback served as the springboard into the sea of submission we swim in today.

i never said the greenbacks were a bad idea just bad implementation.

quoting a statement about a philosophy is one thing. (with which i happen to agree)
however, if we agree, then why are you debating the obvious?



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 



IF the fiat currency maintained value, it could be considered a valued token of exchange, however, it has lost such a value.
There you go. You've just stated my whole argument in your own words. IF it can maintain value it can be considered a valued token. And now ask yourself what causes fiat money to lose value? Could it be... INFLATION! Increasing the money supply debases the value of the currency! And that is not a problem with fiat money is it, it's a problem with the people who are controlling the fiat money isn't it? Now look at the Bitcoin currency, it CANNOT be inflated by anyone once the maximum amount exists. It is indeed a fiat currency, but now we don't need to deal with the human manipulation factor... so explain to me what is wrong with a fiat currency when the volume is properly controlled like that?


so Congress appoints board members, big deal.
Congress does not oversee operations, Congress does not manipulate the supply, Congress does not demand accountability, Congress doesn't even have access to the daily operations nor does it regulate it in any way, shape or form.
You are completely right, and I don't like the FED for all those reasons. However it is not completely truthful to claim the FED is simply a private corporation, because it isn't. I was simply trying to use the correct and factual terminology, not defend their criminal practices.
edit on 1-3-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


However, what you are ignoring is that if the greenbacks remained in circulation and no more of them were printed after the volume reached a nice amount, then they would have held their value perfectly well. Only when more are injected into the money supply do the rest become worth less.

and this is where your history becomes askew.
the original greenbacks have been in circulation for roughly 90 yrs. (all the way til 1994)
there value has not and did not hold as you claim.
you could not commercially trade a greenback for a Reserve Note in the 80s, i tried.

now, here's the part you refuse to acknowledge ... the printing on the notes, themselves.

US Currency The first issue, dated March 10, 1862 consisted of all denominations from $5 to $1,000. The earlier notes in this series carry the following obligation:
"This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private, except duties on imports and interest on the public debt, and is exchangeable for U.S. six per cent twenty year bonds, redeemable at the pleasure of the United States after 5 years."

notice, they are not given any value greater than the credit of the US government.
while at the same time, not being valuable enough to tender the debt of same government.

these are the "finer points" to which i refer.
all the propaganda in the world doesn't change the fact the currency was NEVER valuable enough to pay the government debt. (it even says so and has since its inception)

i'll save commentary about that documentary for another thread thank you.


I once believed it was an entirely private corporation exactly like you do, I even argued it was such, but I have since been put in my place by those willing to present the actual facts of the matter rather than conspiracy nonsense.

thanks for your considerations but since i clearly have more experience in this arena, i'll stick with my conspiracy theory as it's much closer to the truth.

guess what? once you do your own research and make your own conclusions, you won't need to be "put in your place" anymore.
IF you choose to stand where you're put, that'd be your prerogative.


I clearly said they saved the nation, they did not rescue the greenback, they phased it out and replaced it with their god damn Federal Reserve Note. Please try to pay attention and stop twisting the argument into nonsensical crap.

actually, you'd be wrong on both accounts. The English bankers (Rothschild) put an end to the greenback, not the FedReserve. (it wasn't born yet)
the Federal Reserve Note wasn't issued until 1914 ... a few years later.
and lastly, if you want to discuss facts, keep'em straight or others will for you.

i have a sneaky suspicion one reason your thread stalled would be due to your loose representation of the facts.
and, if i may, i think you fail to realize there is only ONE thing that = money, and that my dear is TIME.
in other words, it is the only thing you are gifted from birth that has any indisputable value.
the rest is an illusion that is traded for your time.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   

the original greenbacks have been in circulation for roughly 90 yrs. (all the way til 1994)
there value has not and did not hold as you claim.
Now have a look at when they started to retire the greenback notes. By doing that they eventually caused people to lose faith in the greenback, it became worth less because people knew it was being phased out, and they created a damn panic. That then allowed them to "come to the rescue" and establish the Federal Reserve as a way to "safely manage the economy".


i'll save commentary about that documentary for another thread thank you.
Oh what a shame, I was looking forward to hearing how you would explain away everything that video says.


IF you choose to stand where you're put, that'd be your prerogative.
Trust me, I did my research and tried to prove they were a private corporation, but it's just not that simple, and to label them as such is a plain misrepresentation of the truth.



I clearly said they saved the nation, they did not rescue the greenback, they phased it out and replaced it with their god damn Federal Reserve Note. Please try to pay attention and stop twisting the argument into nonsensical crap.

actually, you'd be wrong on both accounts. The English bankers (Rothschild) put an end to the greenback, not the FedReserve. (it wasn't born yet)
the Federal Reserve Note wasn't issued until 1914 ... a few years later.
Did I say the Federal Reserve was responsible? No I didn't, because I know it wasn't established when they started to retire the greenback, although it was essentially the same people who pushed for the creation of a central bank (English banking cabal). It was established not too long after they initiated a panic (their excuse for a central bank) due to the retirement of the greenbacks. And why do you think the English Rothschild bankers put an end to the greenback anyway hmmmm?


the rest is an illusion that is traded for your time.
Actually, if someone else is willing to exchange items of value for my fiat currency then it's hardly an illusion is it? If a currency is accepted by people as a useful way of trading items, that currency can and will become a way of exchanging items of value.
edit on 1-3-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


IF it can maintain value it can be considered a valued token.

i don't believe i argued this point simply because the bottom-line is, it hasn't maintained its value and it wasn't created with value, it was created with government credit.
Now, since the US credit rating was downgraded, not much has been injected into the economy, yet the value is still plummeting, can your hypothesis explain this?


And now ask yourself what causes fiat money to lose value?
the realization it never had any value. (however long that takes)


Could it be... INFLATION! Increasing the money supply debases the value of the currency!
yes and no.
yes because that is the game at hand.
no because it never held any value at the onset.

look, what you've suggested is that we further manipulate an already manipulated currency.
how does that fix anything?

goats, pigs, cattle, horses and sheep used to be traded for land not currency.
property and crafts were traded for talent.
time and labor were traded for shelter and nutrients.
ppl were rewarded for their efforts not their existence.

i'm not familiar with Bitcoin nor do i desire to be.
it sounds like one more foundation of manipulation, nothing more.

well, quasi-governmental operation isn't quite the correct wording either, so why don't we call it what it is, a private entity.

edit to add: i'm noticing a pattern here, you seem to ask plenty of questions but don't seem to be so forward about answering those asked of you. any particular reason?

edit on 1-3-2012 by Honor93 because: add txt



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   

i don't believe i argued this point simply because the bottom-line is, it hasn't maintained its value and it wasn't created with value, it was created with government credit.
Now, since the US credit rating was downgraded, not much has been injected into the economy, yet the value is still plummeting, can your hypothesis explain this?
It is not "plummeting", but it is still losing value rather quickly. There are probably complex factors in play that are hard to see, but I can't bothered trying to see what those factors may be.



And now ask yourself what causes fiat money to lose value?
the realization it never had any value. (however long that takes)
Ok, one of those "complex factors" may be that people are losing faith in the dollar, especially foreign countries. However, the only reason they are losing faith in the first place is because the dollar has been so heavily manipulated for so long though inflation, and they are starting to wake up to that. Of course, as I have been explaining, a fiat currency relies on faith which will encourage people to use that currency. However, you can't blame fiat currency for people losing faith in it after it has been manipulated for so long. You blame the people who manipulated it.



Could it be... INFLATION! Increasing the money supply debases the value of the currency!
yes and no.
yes because that is the game at hand.
no because it never held any value at the onset.
A fiat currency may indeed begin with no value, but that doesn't negate the fact that certain desirable elements of that currency can give it value. And once people are trading a currency with a perceived value that value is not going to go down unless a) the volume of currency is increased or b) people lose trust in that currency and stop accepting it. The system can work perfectly fine, as long as the currency isn't manipulated (inflated) after it has gained trust and wide spread use.


look, what you've suggested is that we further manipulate an already manipulated currency.
how does that fix anything?
Actually I am suggesting the exact opposite of currency manipulation. I am suggesting that the volume of a currency should be set in stone after a sufficient amount is put into circulation, and from that point on it should be left to its own natural processes. Printing more of the currency past that point only undermines the trust people have already placed into the currency.


i'm not familiar with Bitcoin nor do i desire to be.
That's because it proves your entire perception of fiat money wrong. Bitcoins started with no value at all... but after a while people realized how effective they were as use as a currency, and they've slowly gained more and more value as demand for them increases. And they've been used for several years now completely outsides the realm of the Government and central banks.
edit on 1-3-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   
so the fed owes us for lying.
whats new?
but they borrowed nothing from us.
they borrowed from 1 famous bank owned be 12 other banks,
and promised that our economy, labor, products, and taxes would pay for the loan and intrest.
making us slaves.
it is their debt, and we take the poop end in the whole situation.


drop the bank, no more debt.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


Now have a look at when they started to retire the greenback notes. By doing that they eventually caused people to lose faith in the greenback, it became worth less because people knew it was being phased out, and they created a damn panic. That then allowed them to "come to the rescue" and establish the Federal Reserve as a way to "safely manage the economy".

no and no. 1866 the phase out began.

they were re-called and no panic ensued until much later.
i'm thinking you might want to start including references with this nonsense your posting.

here's mine ... source

The American economy has been based on government debt since 1864 and it is locked into this system.
--- snip ---
On April 12th in 1866, the American congress passed the Contraction Act, allowing the treasury to call in
and retire some of Lincoln's greenbacks, With only the banks standing to gain from this, it's not hard to
work out the source of this action.
--- snip ---
This was fairly easy to do by calling in existing loans and refusing to issue new ones, a tried and proven method of causing depression. They would then spread the word through the media they largely controlled that the lack of a single gold standard was the cause of the hardship which ensued, while all this time using the Contraction Act to lower the amount of money in circulation.
--- snip ---
It went from $1.8 billion in circulation in 1866 allowing $50.46 per person, to $1.3 billion in 1867 allowing $44.00 per person, to $0.6 billion in 1876 making only $14.60 per person and down to $0.4 billion only ten years later leaving only $6.67 per person and a continually growing population.


then, there was the Seyd of evil to further pollute the situation.

"I went to America in the winter of 1872-73, authorised to secure, if I could, the passage of a bill demonetising silver. It was in the interest of those I represented - the governors of the Bank of England - to have it done. By 1873, gold coins were the only form of coin money."

these are not fictitious reports, this is history.
while i agree the philosophy of the greenbacks was a good one, the implementation failed miserably.


Trust me, I did my research and tried to prove they were a private corporation, but it's just not that simple, and to label them as such is a plain misrepresentation of the truth.

i don't trust such words, care to share this research?
and preferably not more conspiracy board postings.


And why do you think the English Rothschild bankers put an end to the greenback anyway hmmmm?
are you serious or just rambling now?
to create a monetary MONOPOLY ... i thought we established that point long ago.

fyi - a Federal Reserve Note ONLY existed after the Federal Reserve was established, not before.
United States Notes, Demand Notes, Treasury Notes, Legal Tender Notes and the like are what you should be referencing, them's the facts.
(which all existed during this time frame btw)


Actually, if someone else is willing to exchange items of value for my fiat currency then it's hardly an illusion is it?

so long as they find value in your illusion it becomes a valid trade doesn't it?
however, that doesn't change that fact that you are still trading substance for illusion.


If a currency is accepted by people as a useful way of trading items, that currency can and will become a way of exchanging items of value.
ummmm, we heard this propaganda when the central bank was established, got anything new?



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 

and this says just how extensive your research is.

I can't bothered trying to see what those factors may be.



However, you can't blame fiat currency for people losing faith in it after it has been manipulated for so long. You blame the people who manipulated it.

no, i blame the people who created it ... AND all the manipulators thereafter.
why would i blame an illusion (fiat currency)? that makes no sense whatsoever.

you want to hold fiat currency valuable, be my guest but don't look to me for a life-jacket when the ship sinks.

i disagree that a fiat system can work just fine but that's my opinion.
it's been tried and failed for quite some time.


I am suggesting that the volume of a currency should be set in stone after a sufficient amount is put into circulation

the real problem with this is population growth and the imbalance it inherently delivers to such a process.

if Bitcoin is anything like Linden, i'm familiar just not like you think i am.
however, you still cannot trade either for substance. (at least not that i'm aware)



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 




Now have a look at when they started to retire the greenback notes. By doing that they eventually caused people to lose faith in the greenback, it became worth less because people knew it was being phased out, and they created a damn panic. That then allowed them to "come to the rescue" and establish the Federal Reserve as a way to "safely manage the economy".

no and no. 1866 the phase out began.

they were re-called and no panic ensued until much later.
i'm thinking you might want to start including references with this nonsense your posting.

here's mine ...
They retired the notes slowly enough so that the panic wouldn't happen until some time later. 1904 is hardly "much later" when you yourself admit they were in circulation up until the 90's. And you source clearly notes the unreasonable amount they removed over the period of a decade. By 1904 people started to panic, especially coupled with their other loan trick mentioned in your source. Your source mentions how these two things coupled together resulted in a panic.


then, there was the Seyd of evil to further pollute the situation.

"I went to America in the winter of 1872-73, authorised to secure, if I could, the passage of a bill demonetising silver. It was in the interest of those I represented - the governors of the Bank of England - to have it done. By 1873, gold coins were the only form of coin money."

these are not fictitious reports, this is history.
while i agree the philosophy of the greenbacks was a good one, the implementation failed miserably.
Of course that is history, and an important part of history too. If gold and silver coins were working fine back then, they can work fine now. I can easily admit that, and I have nothing against such forms of currency. If you agree with the philosophy of the greenback than you are agreeing that fiat currency can work when handled properly. Clearly the greenbacks weren't handled properly because they freaking retired the damn things and contracted the money supply to a rediculous amount. Expanding the money supply can cause just as much damagage as contracting it, it needs to remain stable.



Trust me, I did my research and tried to prove they were a private corporation, but it's just not that simple, and to label them as such is a plain misrepresentation of the truth.

i don't trust such words, care to share this research?
Look, the Federal Reserve is a "private entity" as you call it, but it also has public components. It has both private and public components, it is not completely detached from the Government. Therefore it is neither completely private or completely public, it is BOTH. That is a state I would label as "quasi-government", although more private then anything else.



And why do you think the English Rothschild bankers put an end to the greenback anyway hmmmm?
are you serious or just rambling now?
to create a monetary MONOPOLY ... i thought we established that point long ago.
Yes exactly, and clearly we can agree that they wanted that monopoly to be the Federal Reserve Note. But they didn't destroy the grenback only because they wanted a single debt-based currency, they also feared the power of such a debt-free government issued currency, as it clear in many of the letters and articles written by bankers.


fyi - a Federal Reserve Note ONLY existed after the Federal Reserve was established, not before.
United States Notes, Demand Notes, Treasury Notes, Legal Tender Notes and the like are what you should be referencing, them's the facts.
Why are you clarifying that like I don't get it? When did I ever say the Federal Reserve Note existed before the Federal Reserve was established?



Actually, if someone else is willing to exchange items of value for my fiat currency then it's hardly an illusion is it?

so long as they find value in your illusion it becomes a valid trade doesn't it?
however, that doesn't change that fact that you are still trading substance for illusion.
Ummm yes, if they "find value" then it becomes a valid trade. How can an illusion have measurable value? If someone accepts bitcoins from me, they only do so because they know some one else will accept bitcoins from them. And they will hold their value perfectly well unless the money supply is manipulated (which isn't possible with bitcoin) or if everyone suddenly loses faith in bitcoin, which is very unlikely. Of course it's possible that may happen, but that doesn't mean I'm going to declare such a currency completely useless, because clearly it DOES WORK (which is the whole point) and people are willing to trust and use it, especially when the Government is offering inflationary crap.
edit on 1-3-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 



and this says just how extensive your research is.

I can't bothered trying to see what those factors may be.
I answered the question more extensively in my next point which you have conveniently ignored.


you want to hold fiat currency valuable, be my guest but don't look to me for a life-jacket when the ship sinks.

i disagree that a fiat system can work just fine but that's my opinion.
it's been tried and failed for quite some time.
Yes, there is always a risk a fiat currency is going to "sink", but that's a risk I'm willing to take when the properties of the fiat currency are highly desirable, such as bitcoin. It's not like a have to save it anyway, although I do, because I understand the system and I trust it.



I am suggesting that the volume of a currency should be set in stone after a sufficient amount is put into circulation

the real problem with this is population growth and the imbalance it inherently delivers to such a process.
The population wont grow forever either, it will eventually peak and reach a stable number. However, population growth with a limited currency will only cause an increase in demand, and that will simply cause the currency to increase in value, which is not such a bad thing in my opinion. How do you think gold is any different in that respect? It's a limited commodity and the population is increasing.


if Bitcoin is anything like Linden, i'm familiar just not like you think i am.
however, you still cannot trade either for substance. (at least not that i'm aware)
Bitcoin is vastly different from the Linden currency. And you most certainly can buy things of "substance" with bitcoin. Games, food, electronics, what ever. There are even people who are already paying their rent in bitcoins.
edit on 1-3-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join