FEDERAL DEBT PRIMED TO EXPLODE...

[econ4every1]

Nobody is trying to limit the possibilities for you. Why do you feel the need to 'answer' the question with a question?

My response was a question it was not an answer, it was an attempt to clarify the question before I answer it.

Pick one. Flip a coin--heads for yes, tails for no--and give us an answer already.


I asked that same question the very day you popped up in our midst, and I'm still waiting for an answer--any answer. The FRN is one. The FRN isn't one. Pick your own variable and give us an answer.

I concede you and others here are a lot more familiar with this issue than I am in that you've debated the topic and I have not, so it's a little unfair to ask me if I support it or not without knowing exploring the implications. That's what forums, like these, are generally good for.


Having said that, I'd answer (without a yes or no) by pointing out that I just can't see how, if the FRN was still a currency, that anything would change. Well, except the fact that not charging taxes on investment grade metals would create a tax loophole for the wealthy.

Investments make terrible currencies because people are less inclined to spend them and more inclined to save them. When people save they aren't spending when they aren't spending the demand for labor declines and people make less money. When people make less money demand continues to decline...etc, etc.


Let me ask you if you value gold more than you value FRN's, when you go shopping, what would spend, FRN's or gold?


People will hoard gold and spend FRN's just as they do now.


The other thing that bothers me about this conversation is the seemly unspoken assumption that all that needs to happen is to take the money power out of the government's control and utopia ensues. The fact is the money powers that exist now will dominate a commodity based currency regime as Austrian Economics’s ignores the presence of market power.


The goal of this entire effort seems little more than free the capitalists from the constraint of government so they can dominate the economy even more than they already do.


Now, if you wish, convince me that's not the case.

 

[acptulsa]

Having said that, I'd answer (without a yes or no) by pointing out that I just can't see how, if the FRN was still a currency, that anything would change. Well, except the fact that not charging taxes on investment grade metals would create a tax loophole for the wealthy.

Where did that come from? How would that work? Are you talking about not charging capital gains on metals just because they held their value as the FRN declined in value? So, suppose a business paid their employees in silver coinage? Would the government be unable to charge them taxes? Or would the only change be that those employees could depend on their levels of income remaining noticeably more constant over time?

Investments make terrible currencies because people are less inclined to spend them and more inclined to save them. When people save they aren't spending when they aren't spending the demand for labor declines and people make less money. When people make less money demand continues to decline...etc, etc.

Let me ask you if you value gold more than you value FRN's, when you go shopping, what would spend, FRN's or gold?

People will hoard gold and spend FRN's just as they do now.

Once again, suppose you had employers who paid their employees in gold (or silver)? Where would those particular wage earners get those FRNs to spend? Would they go out and buy them? How can they hoard their pay and spend it on FRNs at the same time? Would they go homeless and starve rather than spend their pay, if they were paid in coin with intrinsic value?

The other thing that bothers me about this conversation is the seemly unspoken assumption that all that needs to happen is to take the money power out of the government's control and utopia ensues. The fact is the money powers that exist now will dominate a commodity based currency regime as Austrian Economics’s ignores the presence of market power.

The goal of this entire effort seems little more than free the capitalists from the constraint of government so they can dominate the economy even more than they already do.

Now, if you wish, convince me that's not the case.

I'd love to, but you haven't explained how sound money would allow capitalists to escape the constraint of government. We have explained how an official currency which never, ever gains value has allowed capitalists (and corporatists, and governments) to pay people ever less in real terms by simply failing to give out raises ever time "the cost of living goes up" (the value of the currency they use to pay out goes down). How could sound money ever possibly allow those evil capitalists of yours to escape the ministrations of a government you seem to believe loves us and wants us to be happy? I don't get it.

 

[pmbug]

Question, would Fed notes be one of the competing currencies?

Yes. Did you read the text of the bill (in the link)? It's not long (less than a page).

 

[econ4every1]

Yes. Did you read the text of the bill (in the link)? It's not long (less than a page).

Yes, I did, but I wanted to be sure I was reading it correctly. Did you see my objections above?

 

[oyarde]

My response was a question it was not an answer, it was an attempt to clarify the question before I answer it.





I concede you and others here are a lot more familiar with this issue than I am in that you've debated the topic and I have not, so it's a little unfair to ask me if I support it or not without knowing exploring the implications. That's what forums, like these, are generally good for.


Having said that, I'd answer (without a yes or no) by pointing out that I just can't see how, if the FRN was still a currency, that anything would change. Well, except the fact that not charging taxes on investment grade metals would create a tax loophole for the wealthy.

Investments make terrible currencies because people are less inclined to spend them and more inclined to save them. When people save they aren't spending when they aren't spending the demand for labor declines and people make less money. When people make less money demand continues to decline...etc, etc.


Let me ask you if you value gold more than you value FRN's, when you go shopping, what would spend, FRN's or gold?


People will hoard gold and spend FRN's just as they do now.


The other thing that bothers me about this conversation is the seemly unspoken assumption that all that needs to happen is to take the money power out of the government's control and utopia ensues. The fact is the money powers that exist now will dominate a commodity based currency regime as Austrian Economics’s ignores the presence of market power.


The goal of this entire effort seems little more than free the capitalists from the constraint of government so they can dominate the economy even more than they already do.


Now, if you wish, convince me that's not the case.

So you think people would hoard real money , gold and spend the unbacked paper money , FRN's .

 

[econ4every1]

So you think people would hoard real money , gold and spend the unbacked paper money , FRN's .

I think they would treat gold and FRN's as they do now, so yes.

 

[pmbug]

... Did you see my objections above?

I had not seen your comments previously, but I've looked just now. You didn't answer the question directly. Would you object to the legislation?

In your comments, you provide a lot of conjecture and I think you need to check some of your assumptions. For my part, should the legislation pass, I forsee the development of modernized payment systems based upon competing currencies (both commodities like precious metals as well as foreign specie). It's the absence of a legal tender monopoly which makes the legislation interesting. It gives people freedom and choice and the market forces from that choice become a powerful force constraining malfeasance in central bank monetary policy *and* govco expenditures.

... In the absence of legal tender laws, Gresham's Law no longer holds. If people are free to reject debased currency, and instead demand sound money, sound money will gradually return to use in society. ...

Let me ask you if you value gold more than you value FRN's, when you go shopping, what would spend, FRN's or gold?

Your question presupposes that merchants are offering you a choice. Are you aware of what is happening in Venezuela right now? When the local currency is worth less than toilet paper (or worth less than other options - even illegal ones), merchants with real goods don't want to take it in trade.

So, the real question is (IMO), if you have faith that the FRN could stand shoulder to shoulder against sound money. That is an interesting question in it's own right. If you think it would, why would you object to the legislation? If you think it would not, why would you object to the legislation?

 

[acptulsa]

So you think people would hoard real money , gold and spend the unbacked paper money , FRN's .

I think they would treat gold and FRN's as they do now, so yes.

And if you were getting part of your pay in metal and part in FRNs, and enough of both to set some by, and the stock market was fluctuating wildly enough at the moment to make you nervous, which would you spend and which would you sit on?

 

[oyarde]

The only thing that gives FRN's any value is people still accept them . Looking at 2015 numbers It costs them about a nickel to make a one dollar or two dollar bill, they print about 25 million different notes per day . They claim only ten percent are added to the pool and the rest are replacement for those taken out of circulation . There is less than 6 cents of metal at todays prices in a currently produced US one dollar coin . This is not real money . I unload it as fast as I get it and convert it to guns , land , trees , property tax , lead , copper , silver , ammo , gold , tools , parts , equipment etc or things of real value. If you do not unload it , it will only be worth less later .

 

[Krugminator2]

The only thing that gives FRN's any value is people still accept them.

things of real value

But why do people accept FRNs? A pretty good reason there will always be demand is because you have to pay taxes in FRNs.

Why would tools, parts, and equipment be of real value? Those all depreciate far faster than cash. And what happens if you buy something of real value at the top? If you bought gold or silver in the late 70 early 80's you would have been underwater for decades?

I don't think there are too many easy answers with this stuff. Ultimately any financial action you take is a speculation.

 

[oyarde]

The Dow is up today 250 to 24,800 with no sign it will get back to the previous high for the year , Gold looks pretty steady around 1345 , Platinum up 5.00 , Rhodium up 10.00 , Palladium up 4.00 , Copper pretty steady at 3.09 . West Texas Light Crude at 66 . If the economy was growing as it should be , I would expect oil and copper to be higher in todays junk dollars .

 

[pmbug]

But why do people accept FRNs?...

Legal tender laws.

 

[oyarde]

But why do people accept FRNs? A pretty good reason there will always be demand is because you have to pay taxes in FRNs.

Why would tools, parts, and equipment be of real value? Those all depreciate far faster than cash. And what happens if you buy something of real value at the top? If you bought gold or silver in the late 70 early 80's you would have been underwater for decades?

I don't think there are too many easy answers with this stuff. Ultimately any financial action you take is a speculation.

It is a crapshoot .

 

[econ4every1]

Would you object to the legislation?

So I'll ask you. in Simple terms, what do you beleive

I don't think I know enough about what the legislation is trying to accomplish to give a reasoned answer to the question. My instinct is to say yes, I would oppose it, but inevitably I'll be told all of the things that are accomplished via this proposal and how dumb I am for rejecting something so obvious, which I am, as of yet, unaware of. As such, I'd like to withhold my answer until I feel I have a better understanding of what a policy like this would accomplish and if they would be worth the inevitable tradeoffs.

In your comments, you provide a lot of conjecture and I think you need to check some of your assumptions

Could I trouble you for examples?

For my part, should the legislation pass, I forsee the development of modernized payment systems based upon competing currencies (both commodities like precious metals as well as foreign specie). It's the absence of a legal tender monopoly which makes the legislation interesting. It gives people freedom and choice and the market forces from that choice become a powerful force constraining malfeasance in central bank monetary policy *and* govco expenditures.

I would counter by saying there is also a lot of conjecture in that paragraph. However, since money systems are social systems, I'd need to understand more about what kinds of social goals, if any, you think are worthwhile and how money might play a role in achieving those goals (again, if at all).

For instance, are there any "societal problems" in your opinion? For example;

Is the level of unemployment an individual problem, or a societal problem?

Is the level of education achieved by students simply an individual problem or a societal.

Is the state of the environment (including natural disasters) an individual or societal problem?

Is infrastructure (creation and maintenance) an individual or societal problem?

These are just a few examples in an honest effort to understand your point of view (which clearly I do not).

Your question presupposes that merchants are offering you a choice.

Sure, based on human behavior, yes, I presuppose that because when people earn FRN's they will seek, as they do today to spend them quickly because their value over time will decrease. Conversely, people will be less likely to want to part with commodities is their future exchange value increases.

People will hoard gold and spend FRN's

There is nothing that prevents a store from opening RIGHT NOW and accepting only gold in exchange for it's goods. The reason it doesn't happen is because gold is an investment and investments make terrible money.

Case in point, I was in line at the grocery store about 30 years ago. As the woman was making change for me she pulled out an old-timey coin wrapper (you know the old paper wrappers). She cracked it on the till to make change for me in quarters. As soon as I heard the quarters fall into the till, I knew they were silver. I looked at my change and sure enough, three quarters ranging from the 40's to the 60's. I pulled out a $20 FRN and asked if I could "get change" (buy them). Turns out there were 4 rolls in her drawer that day, all of which I bought.

You know where all of those quarters are today? They are all still in my possession.

If a store opened that required me to spend my silver quarters and another store accepted non-silver quarters, which store do you think would earn my business?

Thus, it is my assumption that businesses that accept FRN's will have more business than those who do not.

Are you aware of what is happening in Venezuela right now? When the local currency is worth less than toilet paper (or worth less than other options - even illegal ones), merchants with real goods don't want to take it in trade.

Sure, but I suspect we could start a whole new thread about why their currency is worthless and I'd argue that the causes of what's happened there are not going to happen here.

So, the real question is (IMO), if you have faith that the FRN could stand shoulder to shoulder against sound money. That is an interesting question in it's own right. If you think it would, why would you object to the legislation? If you think it would not, why would you object to the legislation?

Because I think the strength of the nation matters. I think that removing the government's monopoly on currency creation creates the incentive for people to work towards common goals that cannot be achieved via Ron Paul's legislation.

Now I have been honest and frank with you. I'm not "pushing an agenda" and I'm genuinely interested in considering your point-of-view (even if you don't convince me you are right). Furthermore, I want to make it clear (again) that people here in RPF have a lot of problems with the way the banking system works. I also take issue with the way the system works and would advocate change. I know that most here in RPF would throw the whole system overboard, and that's fine, but I think there are problems that, not only can the "free market" not solve but become much worse under a pure free market system.

 

[econ4every1]

And if you were getting part of your pay in metal and part in FRNs, and enough of both to set some by, and the stock market was fluctuating wildly enough at the moment to make you nervous, which would you spend and which would you sit on?

That's just it. If an employer has a choice to pay for both, WHY would they pay me in something that appreciates in value? I think that's a ridiculous assumption. If I owned a business I would save my appreciating commodities and spend my FRN's. This idea that gold will just push out FRN's is wishful thinking.

Sure there will be a segment of people that will deal on commodity money, but they will be small.

Any use of commodity money will come at a premium.

In other words, would you take a home loan you could pay at 0% in FRN's or pay in gold at 5%?

Do you think that a job that paid $50k in FRN's would pay the equivalent in gold or silver? No, it would pay less as the future value of the commodity would increase.

 

[econ4every1]

But why do people accept FRNs? A pretty good reason there will always be demand is because you have to pay taxes in FRNs.

.

^This

At the end of the day, business will have to pay their taxes in a currency the government creates. This creates more demand for FRN's than gold and it creates a market for exchange from gold to FRN's.

 

[acptulsa]

That's just it. If an employer has a choice to pay for both, WHY would they pay me in something that appreciates in value? I think that's a ridiculous assumption.

Because he, she or they want to have wiser, more loyal, less distracted, longer term, more invested, and happier people on the workforce than the competition has.

^This

At the end of the day, business will have to pay their taxes in a currency the government creates. This creates more demand for FRN's than gold and it creates a market for exchange from gold to FRN's.

And at the end of the day, people get fleeced. They either lose value to devaluation, they get taxed for capital gains when their stores of value maintain (not gain, merely maintain) value, or they get fleeced (at least from time to time, at least in brokerage fees) by insiders in the stock market.

You seem to be saying this is desirable. What is desirable about it? Other than some vague fears about there being an insufficient amount of something or another to handle all the transactions of a thriving economy (and even you must admit that they will get the job done, but demand raising their value will just lead to smaller amounts being used), where is the catastrophe that lurks down that road?

You keep saying the system has troubles, but the only thing worse is any alternative. But you aren't saying what makes the alternatives worse. We've said some of the things that make alternatives better. What makes the alternatives worse? If repealing the legal tender laws won't make a difference, then can you say why they don't get repealed?

Can you even stop hedging long enough to state unequivocally whether you can support that repeal?

 

[Krugminator2]

maintain[/I] (not gain, merely maintain) value, or they get fleeced (at least from time to time, at least in brokerage fees) by insiders in the stock market.

Brokerage fees are practically zero for normal transactions.

What would be an example of an insider fleecing people in the stock market, where the person getting fleeced didn't deserve it and the person wasn't committing a crime?

 

[acptulsa]

Brokerage fees are practically zero for normal transactions.

What would be an example of an insider fleecing people in the stock market, where the person getting fleeced didn't deserve it and the person wasn't committing a crime?

LOL

Since whether or not the person deserved it is in the eye of the beholder, I doubt there's an answer to that question. The point is, once upon a time even an idiot could save. Now, however, being an idiot is reason enough to "deserve" being fleeced.

That's the sort of attitude which has led to people winking at this fiat money. Who does it hurt but morons? Therefore, even if it does hurt me, I can't admit it because I'll be admitting to being a moron. Hearing Republicans say these things is one thing. But it's really funny to hear liberals, who set such store in being compassionate toward idiots, defend the Fed using the same 'deserves it' logic. It's a tribute to the Fed's propaganda program over the decades that they get such a bipartisan defense.

And I'm not even taking into account the bubbles this rubber currency has helped inflate, and the people who have been hurt when they popped. Much less what could come if it does happen to collapse. It may not be guaranteed to happen, but when you play with fire...

This is the bedrock upon which a true civilization can be built? Or is this the "morality" which is leading to the fall of an empire?

 

[Krugminator2]

LOL

Since whether or not the person deserved it is in the eye of the beholder, I doubt there's an answer to that question. The point is, once upon a time even an idiot could save. Now, however, being an idiot is reason enough to "deserve" being fleeced.

I am not sure what you are advocating. In most (probably all) cases where people lose their shirt, they deserved it because they were greedy. John McAfee ran a pump and dump scheme. Nobody put a gun to anyone's head to buy his trash stock. They chose it. I guess you want more laws saving people from their own bad decisions or are you just pointing out that some people are gullible?

I don't understand what is stopping people from saving? Anyone can buy treasuries or CDs if they just want to hold cash.