Fiat and the Abuse of Using This Term

Zippyjuan

Banned
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
49,008
Spin-off from another thread. Martin Armstrong on the subject.

Fiat is declaring something has a certain value. A gold standard is a fiat standard since the government declares the value of gold. Actually our money today is less fiat than under a gold standard because the value of the dollar is allowed to float.

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/03/15/fiat-and-the-abuse-of-using-this-term/

QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong

People seem to just equate any non commodity form of money as being fiat. But fiat means a value dictated by government. There seems to be a foot-loose use of the word fiat to the point I am not sure what people are yelling about. Bitcoin fluctuates wildly so where is the difference between that and paper money which also is not fixed?

Confused

Thanks

ANSWER: No you are correct. The term “fiat” is actually not applicable to money today for it floats and thus has no value decreed by law. the definition is specific that Fiat money is a currency which derives its value from government regulation or law. That is more akin to Bretton Woods attempting to fix money’s value to $35 worth of gold perpetually.


This idea of “fiat” money is typically mixed up with confidence and acceptance. This illustration is actually correct the only difference is that people believe the dollar is money and will then accept it. This is the core step between barter and a medium of exchange. Those who say only gold is money are biased for that is what they believe is money, which is clearly not the present accepted norm. The first widely accepted money was cattle. When St Patrick first went to Ireland he was shocked that money was regarded as slave girls. He even wrote that his expenses were about the value of 15 humans.

Anything used as money must have a belief that someone else will accept it. Without that “belief” not even gold would have any value as a medium of exchange. So the difference between the dollar and monopoly money is simply “belief”. The key is acceptability for whatever emerges as money must be by broad acceptance.

To the extent money is “legal tender” means that the government will accept it for all payments due to them. The dollar is the most recognized form of money in the world not by the design of government, but by pure “belief” and demand. Of course many Americans who are pro-gold will not agree with that statement because they are too domestic in the focus. It is not that the USA is trustworthy, but insofar as other governments are even less like the Euro, Ruble, Yen, and Yuan. This is why we will eventually be driven into a representative form of an electronic reserve currency as a political compromise, not that this would be the ultimate solution. There is a difference between PRACTICAL ideas and LOFTY THEORIES of a perfect world to which you can never reach. The medium of exchange is purely a representative form of money which in that sense gold, diamonds, bitcoin, and paper money all share that commonality. None of these objects have a consistent value. So what is actually money? That has always been the total productive capacity of a person and a nation. This is why taxation is important for the higher the tax, the lower the productivity of a nation and the poorer it will become. The wealth of a nation is not its tangible objects, but its people’s productive capacity. You earn a wage for your labor and you accept money knowing someone else will take it from you “belief”. So is it the money or your labor that has the value?

Clearly, money can be “fiat money” even when it is a commodity if the state declares its value by regulation and accepts it at that standard. Of course, that was the case in China. Fiat money is currency which derives its value from government regulation or law. The term derives from the Latin fiat (“let it be done”, “it shall be”). It differs from commodity money and representative money. Commodity money is based on some object or commodity, which has been cattle, sea shells, land, rice, wheat, bronze, or a precious metal such as gold or silver. The key was that the object had some utilitarian value or it was desirable and in sufficient quantity to provide a medium of exchange.

So to throw this term around loosely really confuses the issue for it misleads people into thing that somehow a gold standard will solve all problems. Our problem is not what is money, it is government and its endless historical evolution toward corruption. There is nothing new under the sun. We can come up with a solution for now, but eventually the cycle will kick in and we will return to where we are once again. The wheel of fortune always returns to where it began. Because of cycles, there will never be a permanent solution and only a fool would think so like Karl Marx.
 
Last edited:
No one buys gold because some government declares it to be valuable.

People buy gold because they value it themselves.

See the difference?

No? No surprise. You've been pretending not to see that difference for years now.
 
No need to get caught up in it all .These days , there is real money and there is paper money.
 
No need to get caught up in it all .These days , there is real money and there is paper money.

That's it. And real money has value whether there's a legislative fiat concerning it or not, while fiat money has no value whatsoever (except the usual value of notepaper) unless and until a legislature declares it valuable by fiat.

Trying to change the terms won't change the difference, and won't make that difference invisible. Ya just can't dumb people down quite that much, no matter how many schools and TV stations you take over.

Keep repeating this lie over and over in multiple threads, Z2.0. There are rules against spamming here...
 
Last edited:
No need to get caught up in it all .These days , there is real money and there is paper money.

Many people don't even use cash these days.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/are-cash-transactions-becoming-extinct/

Have we really, truly turned into a cashless society?

There have been loads of predictions over the years that coin-and-paper currency may soon become museum pieces. And studies agree more and more that financial transactions now involve debit and credit cards -- as well as other electronic forms of money transference, such as bank-to-bank transfers or online payment services such as Paypal, which is owned by eBay (EBAY).

In fact, according to a new survey of more than 2,300 adult U.S. citizens by U.K.-based Vouchercloud.net, 57 percent of the Americans polled said they "never" carry cash -- compared to the 17 percent who sometimes carry it, and the ten percent who say they "always" have cash on them.

I guess that if paper money isn't real money, digital money is.
 
I guess that if paper money isn't real money, digital money is.

Then I do believe you'd be interested in these loose electrons I have here. True, no legislative fiat has declared them to have value, but if you consider digits real money then you obviously think electrons have intrinsic value, and would be willing to pay a premium for them.
 
Fiat Currency

Thomas Jefferson is reputed to have said that, “If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”

Jefferson did not need a crystal ball to see the rise of The Federal Reserve, a private bank which controls the United States’ Money. Jefferson was well aware of the international banksters even in his time. The inevitability of small groups of elite, well-heeled people to group together and prey on their fellow man is not exactly a new thing either.

Black’s Law Dictionary
[Sixth Edition, 1991] defines “fiat” as an “A command or order to act. Arbitrary or authoritative order or decision.” “Fiat money” is likewise defined as, “inconvertible paper money made legal tender by a government decree.” Inconvertible to, for example, gold or silver. Made legal only by government decree. “Colored money”, i.e. money with the “deceptive appearance, assumed exterior, concealing a lack of reality.”

Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) are colored money. They have no value, except by virtue of a government decree -- a decree arrived at under conditions of duress, and thus in all probability invalid. Just as The Decree of Franklin Roosevelt in recalling gold from the hands of the citizenry was under the direction of the international Banksters, the use of FRN’s is a continuation of this directive. This in turn is linked to the US Bankruptcy, the questionable use of Executive Orders, and what has become to be a Crisis in American Government -- including Social InSecurity and the Infernal Revenue Service.

Consider, for example, the response of The Federal Reserve to questions about the validity of this state of affairs. A little research can be very enlightening.

The following dialogue is reputed to be a conversation with a Mr. Ron Supinski of the Public Information Department of the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank.

CALLER - Mr. Supinski, does my country own the Federal Reserve System?

MR. SUPINSKI - We are an agency of the government.

CALLER - That’s not my question. Is it owned by my country?

MR. SUPINSKI - It is an agency of the government created by congress.

CALLER - Is the Federal Reserve a Corporation?

MR. SUPINSKI - Yes

CALLER - Does my government own any of the stock in the Federal Reserve?

MR. SUPINSKI - No, it is owned by the member banks.

CALLER - Are the member banks private corporations?

MR. SUPINSKI - Yes

CALLER - Are Federal Reserve Notes backed by anything?

MR. SUPINSKI -Yes, by the assets of the Federal Reserve but, primarily by the power of congress to lay tax on the people.

CALLER - Did you say, the power to collect taxes is what backs Federal Reserve Notes?

MR. SUPINSKI - Yes

CALLER - What are the total assets of the Federal Reserve?

MR. SUPINSKI - The San Francisco Bank has $36 Billion in assets.

CALLER - What are these assets composed of?

MR. SUPINSKI - Gold, the Federal Reserve Bank itself and government securities.

CALLER - What value does the Federal Reserve Bank carry gold per oz. on their books?

MR. SUPINSKI - I don’t have that information, but the San Francisco Bank has $1.6 billion in gold.

CALLER - Are you saying the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco has $1.6 billion in gold, the bank itself and the balance of the assets is government securities?

MR. SUPINSKI - - Yes.

CALLER - Where does the Federal Reserve get Federal Reserve Notes from?

MR. SUPINSKI - They are authorized by the Treasury.

CALLER - How much does the Federal Reserve pay for a $10 Federal Reserve Note?

MR. SUPINSKI - Fifty to seventy cents.

CALLER - How much do they pay for a $100.00 Federal Reserve Note?

MR. SUPINSKI - The same fifty to seventy cents.

CALLER - To pay only fifty cents for a $100.00 is a tremendous gain, isn’t it?

MR. SUPINSKI - Yes

CALLER - According to the US Treasury, the Federal Reserve pays $20.60 per 1,000 denomination or a little over two cents for a $100.00 bill, is that correct?

MR. SUPINSKI - That is probably close.

CALLER - Doesn’t the Federal Reserve use the Federal Reserve Notes that cost about two cents each to purchase US Bonds from the government?

MR. SUPINSKI - Yes, but there is more to it than that.

CALLER - Basically, that is what happens?

MR. SUPINSKI - Yes, basically you are correct.

CALLER - How many Federal Reserve Notes are in circulation?

MR. SUPINSKI - $263 billion and we can only account for a small percentage.

CALLER - Where did they go?

MR. SUPINSKI - Peoples’ mattress, buried in their back yards and illegal drug money.

CALLER - Since the debt is payable in Federal Reserve Notes, how can the $4 trillion national debt be paid-off with the total Federal Reserve Notes in circulation?

MR. SUPINSKI - I don’t know.

CALLER - If the Federal Government would collect every Federal Reserve Note in circulation would it be mathematically possible to pay the $4 trillion national debt?

MR. SUPINSKI - No

CALLER - Am I correct when I say, $1 deposited in a member bank $8 can be lent out through Fractional Reserve Policy?

MR.SUPINSKI - About $7.

CALLER - Correct me if I am wrong but, $7 of additional Federal Reserve Notes were never put in circulation. But, for lack of better words were “created out of thin air” in the form of credits and the two cents per denomination were not paid either. In other words, the Federal Reserve Notes were not physically printed, but in reality were created by a journal entry and lent at interest. Is that correct?

MR. SUPINSKI - Yes

CALLER - Is that the reason there are only $263 billion Federal Reserve Notes in circulation?

MR. SUPINSKI - That is part of the reason.

CALLER - Am I mistaking that when the Federal Reserve Act was passed (on Christmas Eve) in 1913, it transferred the power to coin and issue our nations money and to regulate the value thereof from Congress to a Private corporation. And my country now borrows what should be our own money from the Federal Reserve (a private corporation) plus interest. Is that correct and the debt can never be paid off under the current money system of country?

MR. SUPINSKI - Basically, yes.

CALLER - I smell a rat, do you?

MR. SUPINSKI - I am sorry, I can’t answer that. I work here.

CALLER - Has the Federal Reserve ever been independently audited?

MR. SUPINSKI - We are audited.

CALLER - Why is there a current House Resolution 1486 calling for a complete audit of the Federal Reserve by the GAO and why is the Federal Reserve resisting?

MR. SUPINSKI - I don’t know.

CALLER -Does the Federal Reserve regulate the value of Federal Reserve Notes and interest rates?

MR. SUPINSKI - Yes

CALLER - Explain how the Federal Reserve System can be Constitutional if, only the Congress of the US, which comprises of the Senate and the House of Representatives has the power to coin and issue our money supply and regulate the value thereof?
[Article 1 Section 1 and Section 8] Nowhere, in the Constitution does it give Congress the power or authority to transfer any powers granted under the Constitution to a private corporation or, does it?

MR. SUPINSKI - I am not an expert on constitutional law. I can refer you to our legal department.

CALLER - I can tell you I have read the Constitution. It does NOT provide that any power granted can be transferred to a private corporation. Doesn’t it specifically state, all other powers not granted are reserved to the States and to the citizens? Does that mean to a private corporation?

MR. SUPINSKI - I don’t think so, but we were created by Congress.

CALLER - Would you agree it is our country and it should be our money as provided by our Constitution?

MR. SUPINSKI - I understand what you are saying.

CALLER - Why should we borrow our own money from a private consortium of bankers? Isn’t this why we had a revolution, created a separate sovereign nation and a Bill of Rights?

MR. SUPINSKI - (Declined to answer).

CALLER - Has the Federal Reserve ever been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court?

MR. SUPINSKI - I believe there has been court cases on the matter.

CALLER - Have they been Supreme Court Cases?

MR. SUPINSKI - I think so, but I am not sure.

CALLER - Didn’t the Supreme Court declare unanimously in A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. vs. US and Carter vs. Carter Coal Co. the corporative-state arrangement an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power? [“The power conferred is the power to regulate. This is legislative delegation in its most obnoxious form; for it is not even delegation to an official or an official body, presumptively disinterested, but to private persons.” Carter vs. Carter Coal Co...]

MR. SUPINSKI - I don’t know, I can refer you to our legal department.

CALLER - Isn’t the current money system a house of cards that must fall because, the debt can mathematically never be paid-off?

MR. SUPINSKI - It appears that way. I can tell you have been looking into this matter and are very knowledgeable. However, we do have a solution.

CALLER - What is the solution?

MR. SUPINSKI - The Debit Card.

CALLER - Do you mean under the E.F.T. Act (Electronic Funds Transfer)? Isn’t that very frightening, when one considers the capabilities of computers? It would provide the government and all it’s agencies, including the Federal Reserve such information as: You went to the gas station @ 2:30 and bought $10.00 of unleaded gas @ $1.41 per gallon and then you went to the grocery store @ 2:58 and bought bread, lunch meat and milk for $12.32 and then went to the drug store @ 3:30 and bought cold medicine for $5.62. In other words, they would know where we go, when we went, how much we paid, how much the merchant paid and how much profit he made. Under the E.F.T. they will literally know everything about us. Isn’t that kind of scary?

MR. SUPINSKI - Yes, it makes you wonder.

CALLER - I smell a GIANT RAT that has overthrown my constitution. Aren’t we paying tribute in the form of income taxes to a consortium of private bankers?

MR. SUPINSKI - I can’t call it tribute; it is interest.

CALLER - Haven’t all elected officials taken an oath of office to preserve and defend the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic? Isn’t the Federal Reserve a domestic enemy?

MR. SUPINSKI - I can’t say that.

CALLER - Our elected officials and members of the Federal Reserve are guilty of aiding and abetting the overthrowing of my Constitution and that is treason. Isn’t the punishment of treason death?

MR. SUPINSKI - I believe so.

CALLER - Thank you for your time and information and if I may say so, I think you should take the necessary steps to protect you and your family and withdraw your money from the banks before the collapse, I am.

MR. SUPINSKI - It doesn’t look good.

CALLER - May God have mercy on the souls who are behind this unconstitutional and criminal act called the Federal Reserve. When the ALMIGHTY MASS awakens to this giant hoax, they will not take it with a grain of salt. It has been a pleasure talking to you and I thank you for your time. I hope you will take my advice before it does collapse.

MR. SUPINSKI - Unfortunately, it does not look good.

CALLER - Have a good day and thanks for your time.

MR. SUPINSKI - Thanks for calling.


If the reader has any doubts to the validity of this conversation, call your nearest Federal Reserve Bank, YOU KNOW THE QUESTIONS TO ASK! You won’t find them listed under the Federal Government. They are in the white pages, along with Federal Express, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC), and any other business. Find out for yourself if all this is true. And then, go to your local law library and look up the case of Lewis vs. US, case #80-5905, 9th Circuit, June 24, 1982. It reads in part: “Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the federal reserve are NOT federal instrumentality’s... but are independent and privately owned and controlled corporations... federal reserve banks are listed neither as ‘wholly owned’ government corporations [under 31 USC Section 846] nor as ‘mixed ownership’ corporations [under 31 USC Section 856]... 28 USC Sections 1346(b), 2671. ‘Federal agency’ is defined as: the executive departments, the military departments, independent establishments of the United States, and corporations acting primarily as instrumentality’s of the United States, but does not include any contractors with the United States... There are no sharp criteria for determining whether an entity is a federal agency within the meaning of the Act, but the critical factor is the existence of the federal government control over the ‘detailed physical performance’ and ‘day to day operations’ of that entity. Other factors courts have considered include whether the entity is an independent corporation... whether the government is involved in the entity’s finances... and whether the mission of the entity furthers the policy of the United States... Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks, and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentality’s...” It is evident from the legislative history of the Federal Reserve Act that Congress did not intend to give the federal government direction over the daily operation of the Reserve Banks... The fact that the Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks does not make them federal agencies under the Act... Unlike typical federal agencies, each bank is empowered to hire and fire employees at will. Bank employees do not participate in the Civil Service Retirement System. They are covered by worker’s compensation insurance, purchased by the Bank, rather than the Federal Employees Compensation Act. Employees traveling on Bank business are not subject to federal travel regulations and do not receive government employee discounts on lodging and services... Finally, “the Banks are empowered to sue and be sued in their own name. 12 USC Section 341. They carry their own liability insurance and typically process and handle their own claims...” According to the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, “When the Federal Reserve was created, its stock was sold to the member banks.” (“The Hats The Federal Reserve Wears”, published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia) The original Stockholders of the Federal Reserve Banks in 1913 were the Rockefeller’s, JP Morgan, Rothschild’s, Lazard Freres, Schoellkopf, Kuhn-Loeb, Warburgs, Lehman Brothers and Goldman Sachs. The MONEYCHANGERS wanted to be insured they had a monopoly over our money supply, so Congress passed into law Title 12, Section 284 of the United States Code. Section 284 specifically states, “NO STOCK ALLOWED TO THE US.” * Monopoly - “A privilege or peculiar advantage vested in one or more persons or companies, consisting in the exclusive right [or power) to carry on a particular business or trade, manufacture a particular article, or control the sale of the whole supply of a particular commodity, A form of market structure in which only a few firms dominate the total sales of a product or service. ‘Monopoly’, as prohibited by Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, has two elements: possession of a monopoly power in relevant market and willful acquisition or maintenance of that power, as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior power, business acumen, or historical product. A monopoly condemned by the Sherman Act is the power to fix prices, or exclude competition, coupled with policies designed to use and preserve that power.” (Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition) The Federal Reserve Act goes one step farther, “No Senator or Representative in Congress shall be a member of the Federal Reserve Board or an officer or director of a Federal Reserve Bank.” They didn’t want We The People to have any say in the operation of their monopoly through our elected officials. Recall the quote from John Mayard Keynes: “There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic laws on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one in a million is able to diagnose.” Keynes seems to be quite accurate in his statement. So far, anyway.

http://www.halexandria.org/dward297.htm
 
Last edited:
Spin-off from another thread.

Keep repeating this lie over and over in multiple threads, Z2.0. There are rules against spamming here...


Looks like our resident Democrat ZippyJuan is starting to overstay his welcome here. He went from posting rosy monthly economic numbers about the economy to rehashing his Obama obsequiousness in multiple threads.

Now his comparing gold to paper. Sounds like he's desperate to reach the new Daily Paul members here.
 
A gold standard is a fiat standard since the government declares the value of gold. Actually our money today is less fiat than under a gold standard because the value of the dollar is allowed to float.

844.jpg



you're so lost I don't even know that I can help.


fiat is printed at an arbitrary quantity which the government decides

Its value is "floats" relative to how much .gov prints in relation to demand.


gold is mined by investors.
bitcoin is mined by investors.


Their decision to mine depends upon market forces and the value of gold or btc mined floats relative to how much effort is required to mine in relation to demand.


Bretton Woods attempting to fix money’s value to $35 worth of gold

This statement shows a complete lack of understanding of Bretton Woods.


It pegged ONE OUNCE of gold to $35.

the phrase:

fix money’s value to $35 worth of gold

LOL I can't even say that 3 times fast.


The price of gold still floated. And the VALUE of $35 floated with it.


At the time of 1944 Bretton wood $35 peg, $100 would buy you 1000 loaves of bread. Now, trillions of funny money dollars printed later... its worth less than 50 loaves.

If it had stayed pegged to gold since 1944, that $100 would still buy you over 750 loaves today, because the price of bread relative to gold has hardly changed... while the price of EVERYTHING relative to the overprinted shitdollar has skyrocketed.
 
Last edited:
No one buys gold because some government declares it to be valuable.

People buy gold because they value it themselves.


See the difference?

No? No surprise. You've been pretending not to see that difference for years now.

BINGO!! This is pretty much the heart and soul of Austrian Theory of Value. :)
 
Looks like our resident Democrat ZippyJuan is starting to overstay his welcome here. He went from posting rosy monthly economic numbers about the economy to rehashing his Obama obsequiousness in multiple threads.

Now his comparing gold to paper. Sounds like he's desperate to reach the new Daily Paul members here.
What does party affiliation have to do with what he says? I've read and heard people of all stripes saying the kind of thing zip is saying in this thread.
 
What does party affiliation have to do with what he says? I've read and heard people of all stripes saying the kind of thing zip is saying in this thread.

I did not realize Martin Armstrong was a Democrat. He is often cited by others on this forum for what he says on the economy.
 
I did not realize Martin Armstrong was a Democrat. He is often cited by others on this forum for what he says on the economy.

You make a great deal of that statement. You use it to act as though gold would ever be coined and forced to circulate at other than its actual value. Which is silly.

Commodities can be money, and can have their value fixed by fiat. For example, two or three cents worth of copper can be minted as a penny, and people can be forced to accept it at that value, cough it up at that value, and not melt it down and sell it at a profit under penalty of jail time.

So? It merely reinforces the case against that goofy lettuce your bosses have been pawning off on us for a hundred and two long years. It can't be easy to devalue everyone's savings to the point where a coin that wasn't worth its face value could become so prohibitively expensive to manufacture, even as mining and minting techniques improve enough to slash real production costs.

I'm becoming fond of this thread. Maybe I'll bump it 'till doomsday...
 
Last edited:
You make a great deal of that statement. You use it to act as though gold would ever be coined and forced to circulate at other than its actual value. Which is silly.

Commodities can be money, and can have their value fixed by fiat.
For example, two or three cents worth of copper can be minted as a penny, and people can be forced to accept it at that value, cough it up at that value, and not melt it down and sell it at a profit under penalty of jail time.

So? It merely reinforces the case against that goofy lettuce your bosses have been pawning off on us for a hundred and two long years. It can't be easy to devalue everyone's savings to the point where a coin that wasn't worth its face value could become so prohibitively expensive to manufacture even as mining and minting techniques improve enough to slash real production costs.
Can you explain what you mean by "commodities", plz? The word can be used to describe PMs, grain, produce, and a number of other things. Thnx. :)
 
Can you explain what you mean by "commodities", plz? The word can be used to describe PMs, grain, produce, and a number of other things. Thnx. :)

And that's what it is. Anything tangible and of value.

PMs have always been popular because they're very portable, and can be minted into a form which can be something of a guarantee of value. In other words, coins are very handy.
 
What does party affiliation have to do with what he says? I've read and heard people of all stripes saying the kind of thing zip is saying in this thread.

Eh, broken clock and all that. I agree with him on some of the immigration stuff, but that doesn't change his mostly anti-liberty views and his main purpose of thwarting this forum and Paul.
 
Gold and certain metals will always valuable without any state proclamations. You could be on some desert island in a time machine. Gold is discovered. The first guy to find the gold, polish it up, and make an offering to a young woman is gold himself. That's true regardless of time and place.
 
Gold and certain metals will always valuable without any state proclamations. You could be on some desert island in a time machine. Gold is discovered. The first guy to find the gold, polish it up, and make an offering to a young woman is gold himself. That's true regardless of time and place.

Note paper, on the other hand, would be a damned sight more valuable if it wasn't covered with numbers, scrollwork, dead presidents and whatnot.
 
Thread is starting to remind of the movie The Man Who Would be King. There is a scene where Michael Caine's daughter bites Sean Connery, which finally spoils Danny and Peachy's plan to make off with the riches. Connery's blood is spilled, revealing that he is not a god after all.

If only somebody would just bite the fed hard enough to call their bluff.



images
 
Back
Top