The downside to deflation in a debt-based monetary system?

[Travlyr]

It is not forced on you whatsoever.

Are you aware of legal tender laws? LMAO. Come on. You seriously don't expect me to believe your bullshit? Seriously? LOL.

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

That is correct, but one of the mistakes you are making here, and it is a big one (besides coming off as arrogant and condescending), is not knowing who you are talking to, or what their understanding of the system is. You assume, generally speaking, that posters here do not understand the difference between a deposit (and actual transfer of title) and a bailment (an allocated holding). That is not the case, as most really do understand that. Evidently you are not aware that the subject, including the history of deposits vs. bailments, is talked about here.

You then take great pains as you patronize everyone with monopoly set exercises to drive points home on which we might well agree, or that don't require any prior explanation, in what appears to be an attempt to get everyone thinking along the lines your preferred definitions.

There are many who insist on semantic purity when referring to things like "money", "inflation", or other terms, the common usage of which has rendered them forever bastardized. "Don't call it money! It's debt!", or "No, debt is not money, only money is money! Money is Constitutionally defined, call it fiat currency instead!" Or inflation: "Inflation is a general increase in prices levels!" versus, "Inflation is increasing the money supply!" - all pathetic of course, because the former definition managed to dethrone the latter through common usage, and therefore common acceptance.

Then we go inefficiently and unnecessarily round and round on something that really is minor, even irrelevant, given that all that was really needed rather than clarify your intent, or see through the spirit of someone else's intent and translate on the fly, clarifying as you go.

No, you instead hold fast to your definition, as if there is purity in definitions, or some kind of law that applies to naming conventions, often arguing trivial or meaningless points without realizing where there is already fundamental agreement!

I would submit, however, that if your arguments require elaborate prefaces, and disambiguation such that everyone finally accept and adopt your favored terms, your criteria, your models and your definitions for understanding, then you're already on slippery footing. The reason for this is that while you may well be arguing a particular thing on principle, semantics and definitions aren't principles. They're human constructs. Getting people to see that "debt is not money" may be a way for you to focus everyone's attention on what you consider the root problem you want addressed -- but most aren't concerned with what something is called, but rather what is does, regardless what it is called.

So I have a suggestion, one that I doubt you will take: Rather than take the 'wayward ignorant flock' here by the hand and lead us all out of the Dark Forest and onto the Yellow Brick Road of your superior understanding and monetary enlightenment, why don't you just come out with your conclusions first, and argue your ultimate points, directly and forthrightly, from there?

So you have your own definition of "money", and your own criteria by which a thing may or may not be called such. This seems to be key to your arguments, because bottom line, you don't seem to have a problem with fiat currency, which you do think of as money (to the point of insisting, and want everyone else to think of as money, based on your favored criteria). What you do seem to have a problem with - and many here do as well, including myself - is bank fraud, as longs are played against shorts with contradictory claims to the same existing UNITS when they are used as money.

That's the problem, he thinks everyone in the world should agree with his definitions, which is never going to happen because words are just constructs

It's like something is going to crash into the Earth & people are debating whether it's an asteroid or satellite, as opposed to doing something about it

How much are you willing to bet on this thread going 190 pages like the other stupid thread? I see some potential I think if this one goes like this for 190 pages then you might shoot yourself or go crazy

It is, in fact, merely an artifact of record keeping and not money whatsoever.

Yes, creation of that "artifact" is what we & most of the world calls & sees as "money" because it affects consumer preferences & prices & so on, now, you may be an enlightened being that doesn't call it that, which is fine, but the good thing is that people here DO agree that this "artifact" is a problem & needs to be taken care of so stop wasting everyone's time on your definitions because the whole world is never going to agree on definition of every word, let's move on

Ok, just shove this BS aside for a moment & just say what do you want? What's your view on economics & how YOU think things "should" be? So that we can see where you stand, for the sake of clarity

 

[Black Flag]

Are you aware of legal tender laws? LMAO. Come on. You seriously don't expect me to believe your bullshit? Seriously? LOL.

Ah, duh... what do you think that means to you?

Do you believe that if you say to someone "I will sell my car, but only if you pay me 10oz of gold", that they can stuff $17000 in your hand and take your car?
If you believe that you are daft! They would be stealing from you and they would be arrested and charged as such.

The ONLY thing the legal tender laws force you to do is to discharge YOUR TAXES in that currency - but that is a demand of government and not anyone else.

 

[Black Flag]

That's the problem, he thinks everyone in the world should agree with his definitions, which is never going to happen because words are just constructs

Sir, if we can't agree on the meaning of words, we are doomed as a society!

Further it is not the meaning of the words that is so much the issue - it is that you and others change the meaning of the words whenever it suits your agenda.

Today, money is this, but now, I need money to be this air-thing so, I'll change the definition of money to also include that for now.....

It's like something is going to crash into the Earth & people are debating whether it's an asteroid or satellite, as opposed to doing something about it

Ummm but that kinda makes a difference.
One is going to burn up in the atmosphere, with at best a few small fragments reaching the surface...
...and the other is going to obliterate a continent or two.

So it is kinda important to know what you are talking about - it is the difference of not worrying about it and kissing your a$$ goodbye.

Yes, creation of that "artifact" is what we & most of the world calls & sees as "money"

And calling it a good time doesn't make it change what it is either - accounting entries.

because it affects consumer preferences & prices & so on,

It absolutely does no such thing!

Another crackpot theory is born out of the same pixie dust of thin-air money!

See, Steven - this is exactly my point.
Completely bizarre understanding of money and *poof* another crack pot theory!

but the good thing is that people here DO agree that this "artifact" is a problem

See, Steven, exactly my point.

Because of a complete misunderstanding of what is money and what is accounting, this good sir is advocating that there is a problem ... and it has to do with the accounting of the flow of money and not one wit about what is the actual problem - the concurrent claims on the same money!!!

Ok, just shove this BS aside for a moment & just say what do you want? What's your view on economics

"View"?

Economics is a science, not an opinion.

 

[Steven Douglas]

The ONLY thing the legal tender laws force you to do is to discharge YOUR TAXES in that currency - but that is a demand of government and not anyone else.

Yeah, that, along with another minor additional little thing. If you are in a civil dispute with someone, and you are offered legal tender to resolve it, the court will actually give you a choice: you can accept the legal tender, or you can refuse it, and the court will consider the debt discharged, and you can pound sand. But it's true, nobody will put a gun to your head and force you to accept FRNs.

Oh, but you're wrong about it being only about taxes. Dead wrong. Legal tender laws force you to use legal tender for any debt, fine, judgment, penalty, fee, etc., ad nauseam, public or private, that is enforced by the courts.

As I wrote in the other thread, but you didn't respond, legal tender laws are not just a declaration of what the taxman demands as payment. It is also a declaration, by fiat, for what the taxman's courts will decide the market will accept, and often be forced to use as payment (hence, "legal tender for all debts public and private").

 

[Black Flag]

Yeah, that, along with another minor additional little thing. If you are in a civil dispute with someone, and you are offered legal tender to resolve it, the court will actually give you a choice: you can accept the legal tender, or you can refuse it, and the court will consider the debt discharged, and you can pound sand. But it's true, nobody will put a gun to your head and force you to accept FRNs.

Not to be nothing but a disagreeable stuck in the mud.....

...if we contracted with each other that you would provide X number of coins of gold, and you failed to do so and I took you to court - you would STILL be required to fulfill our agreement of providing such number of coins.

Whereas you would be correct in saying that the court could say "Well BF, X coins at today's rate in FRN is Y, so Steven, pay BF Y in FRN and BF can go get his damn coins himself"

As I wrote in the other thread, but you didn't respond, legal tender laws are not just a declaration of what the taxman demands as payment. It is also a declaration, by fiat, for what the taxman's courts will decide the market will accept, and often be forced to use as payment (hence, "legal tender for all debts public and private").

Fine, sharpen the pencil - as write in "...or whatever the taxman and his courts wishes to be resolved financially"

However, the point to Travlyr is that if HE chooses not use FRN in HIS transactions, he is free to do so.

PS: the fundamental point of government money exists solely as a means to pay government obligations and to receive taxes as revenue to pay those obligations.

If there was no taxes, government tender laws would be unnecessary.

All modern money exists because of the desire of the people to discharge their tax debts.

PSS: Which means if "you" out there wish for a "free market" money to compete with "government" money, the first step is to abolish taxation

 

[Steven Douglas]

Sir, if we can't agree on the meaning of words, we are doomed as a society!

The problem here is not about mutual agreement on the definitions, but rather a need you see for mutual acceptance of yours, as a condition or basis for discussion. There is a big difference.

EXAMPLE: I saw you use a definition for inflation that I happen to agree with, as simply "an increase in the money supply". Of course, Ben Bernanke and many others would disagree, insisting on their preferred definitions, as a "general increase in price levels" (sometimes with an additional "...thought to be cause primarily by an increase in the money supply").

So who is "right"? Both can be, because both are accepted definitions, based on common usage; one being the original, but now increasingly archaic, and the one that came into later usage.

There is no such thing as a "pure" definition, but we can at least approach a purer understanding, especially when we realize that communication always starts out as a negotiation (like hand-shaking in modem speak, as various protocols are worked out) - and also realizing that clear communication is incumbent upon both the sender and the receiver.

You aren't hand-shaking or negotiating. You aren't listening to anyone else's protocols or definitions, or trying to clarify them. You have a protocol of your own. It is the only one that matters to you, and you are insisting that it be the only one used. That's a bigger problem for you than anyone, because you are the one trying to make a point.

I KNOW that the word 'inflation', by itself, has been bastardized.
I ACCEPT this bastardized meaning, which I believe was intentional, and does nothing but obfuscate and confuse.
I ACCEPT that most people will hear "price increases" when they think of inflation. I try not to fight that, so...
I ADAPT by not saying "inflation" at all. Not by itself. I will instead say "money inflation", or "currency inflation" or "supply inflation". That makes MY meaning abundantly more clear, and leaves no wiggle room for obfuscation by someone who wants to play word games to his or her advantage, as when someone prefers to refer to inflation only in terms of a general effect with multiple causes.

 

[Steven Douglas]

However, the point to Travlyr is that if HE chooses not use FRN in HIS transactions, he is free to do so.

Oh, sure, sure, yes of course he is "free" to do so. Likewise, State banks were "free" to compete after 1865. The National Bank Act did not prohibit them from competing at all. Ignore the little matter that state bank notes were taxed out of existence. Even so, they were "free" to compete, and likewise, people were "free" to use them anyway.

So yes, he can use gold or silver coins if he wants, or even bullion. He is "free" to trade in them. He just has to "buy" them, and pay applicable taxes on them. And when the Fed's currency is devalued against it, and most other commodities over time, as it is wont to do, he can pay the "currency valuation loss" tax (misnamed in his case as a "capital gains" tax), which of course will be valued in FRN's. Other than that, no problem. After paying all applicable taxes and fees, he is "free" to anything he wants. Sure. And we are even free to refer to this as "free".

PS: the fundamental point of government money exists solely as a means to pay government obligations and to receive taxes as revenue to pay those obligations.

If there was no taxes, government tender laws would be unnecessary.

Yeah? Then why weren't legal tender laws always enacted? FRN's weren't always the currency.

All modern money exists because of the desire of the people to discharge their tax debts.

OK, that's pretty over the top right there. Talk about a reach. In fact, "the desire of the people to discharge their tax debts" is friggin hilarious. Yeah, everyone sitting around, just pining away, desiring to discharge tax debts, and wondering howsomever they might do so.

Now I'm thinking that the little mini-debate you had with Roy L. was a sock puppet exercise, because that is precisely how he reasoned. Izzat you, Roy? Come on, be 'honest' now. I suspected before, but now I STRONGLY suspect that I am talking to a sock puppet of Roy L. - you even yawned and double yawned at "each other". lol

Black Flag? As in "arg"? Did you pirate a Roy L. ship of state?

And, btw, I noticed you were careful enough to qualify that sentence with "modern money". That kind of narrowed it.

PSS: Which means if "you" out there wish for a "free market" money to compete with "government" money, the first step is to abolish taxation

Yeah, if I bought into your premise about "modern money", or why it exists. But hardly. No, to compete with "government money" (funny how that collectivizes it when you say it that way), I could do as the government did, and simply abolish government money -- force government to reckon money according to the market, and not the other way around. But I don't even care about that, because I don't think in terms of artificial (state imposed) advantages or disadvantages. That's a mistake government has been duped into making. There's no need for anything like that.

To compete with government money all that is needed is to abolish all artificial barriers to entry of other forms of competing currencies. That includes abolishing legal tender laws and abolishing taxation on anything that people decide to use as money. (and yes, I recognize you might consider that an abolishment of taxes - so before you sharpen your pencil, it's stipulated). HR 1098 is a good step in that direction. My kingdom for an HR 1098.

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

"View"?

Economics is a science, not an opinion.

Ok, I've had enough of this BS!

It was a simple question but obviously you're not here for an honest debate but just to waste everyone's time since you're obviously in the habit of splitting hair on every issue so I'm done with this BS!

OK, that's pretty over the top right there. Talk about a reach. In fact, "the desire of the people to discharge their tax debts" is friggin hilarious. Yeah, everyone sitting around, just pining away, desiring to discharge tax debts, and wondering howsomever they might do so.

Now I'm thinking that the little mini-debate you had with Roy L. was a sock puppet exercise, because that is precisely how he reasoned. Izzat you, Roy? Come on, be 'honest' now. I suspected before, but now I STRONGLY suspect that I am talking to a sock puppet of Roy L. - you even yawned and double yawned at "each other". lol

Black Flag? As in "arg"? Did you pirate a Roy L. ship of state?

I wouldn't be surprised one bit if that were the case, clearly their posting styles are the same with quoting one or two liners to reply, etc

Some people just need to get a fricking life

 

[Black Flag]

Ok, I've had enough of this BS!


It was a simple question but obviously you're not here for an honest debate

You are very weird.

What you asked was a two part question:

The first part was -to quote you exactly-:
"What's your view on economics"

Now, since this is the first part of the question which - by its placement means it is fundamental to understanding the second part, I answered it.

And you go half-cocked spinning like a top...which to me means you do not believe economics is a science and is only a bunch of opinions.

So, why don't you take your soccer ball and go home if you are all huffy about it.

 

[thoughtomator]

Economics isn't a hard science and anyone who thinks it is is an arrogant and dangerous fool.

 

[Black Flag]

The problem here is not about mutual agreement on the definitions, but rather a need you see for mutual acceptance of yours, as a condition or basis for discussion. There is a big difference.

No Steven, that is not the problem. You skipped over the vital function of definitions - improve the understanding of reality -

You want to use a definition that is devoid of understanding - you want "money" to be real and not real - but such a definition is a contradiction! Because you wish to use a contradiction, I discard your definition.

Others define money to be gold. I apply their definition, and it does not work. Gold is not money. Almost no one accepts it as money.

Though I always laugh at others that use the Fallacy of Appeal to Authority in an attempt to argue with me, I laugh even harder when they use that appeal to their authority to try to "prove" their fallacy to me, but are very silent when they hear that same authority tell them "Gold is not money" LoL!

So their definition fails to explain reality, so I discard it too.

So you complain I am intolerant of contradictions and fantasy

Well, you'd be right.

 

[Black Flag]

EXAMPLE: I saw you use a definition for inflation that I happen to agree with, as simply "an increase in the money supply". Of course, Ben Bernanke and many others would disagree, insisting on their preferred definitions, as a "general increase in price levels" (sometimes with an additional "...thought to be cause primarily by an increase in the money supply").


So who is "right"? Both can be,

And this is where you err, and fall victim to "Revolution within the Form".

The two definitions are exclusive, Steve - thus, they cannot both be right.

One or the other best describes the reality - it cannot be "both" as you claim, since their descriptions are nowhere near the same nor describe the same phenomena.

Because some people are uncertain in reality, they appear to have no tools which to test a definition, so they mumble about trying to use both at the same time or a different one at a different time, all trying to make sense of what they see of the world -- and with absolutely no surprise, they fail.

Your council to them?

Change the definition ...again... based on what another fool claims because, heck, it doesn't matter because we are all right, right?

 

[Black Flag]

Steve,

So I've been amply fair and honest here by providing all my definitions, whereas the rest have been well,....silent.... in providing theirs - but quite vocal and whining about things! Methinks they really do not understand what money/inflation/etc. really means, and make broad, baseless assumptions about these things -

If you think you have a definition of money that is not self-contradictory, present forth, and let's test it.

 

[Travlyr]

Ah, duh... what do you think that means to you?

Do you believe that if you say to someone "I will sell my car, but only if you pay me 10oz of gold", that they can stuff $17000 in your hand and take your car?
If you believe that you are daft! They would be stealing from you and they would be arrested and charged as such.

The ONLY thing the legal tender laws force you to do is to discharge YOUR TAXES in that currency - but that is a demand of government and not anyone else.

I showed you yesterday an employer who used gold and silver in payment. The Feds put him out of business and took him to court. Now your claim is that if they had been paying taxes appropriately, then everything would have been hunky dory for them. Bullshit. Even if you are right that legal tender laws only apply to taxes the fact of the matter is the Feds are going screw with you anyway if they don't like what you are doing ... just like they screw with medical marijuana dispensaries. They don't like people trading in gold and silver because it is nearly impossible for the Feds to keep track of the people and their transactions.

I showed you yesterday what real money is. You don't understand.

HR 1098 would solve the problem.

 

[Black Flag]

I showed you yesterday an employer who used gold and silver in payment.

The Feds put him out of business and took him to court.

And I explained to you why - and it had nothing to do with him "paying" people with gold.

It had everything to do with avoiding paying taxes.

Now, you can carry on imagining other things and ignore my words like you've repeatedly done, but trust me, you will get no better in your understanding of the issues at hand.

Now your claim is that if they had been paying taxes appropriately, then everything would have been hunky dory for them. Bullshit.

Young'n, I get paid in Euros, Auzzi/Cdn/US Dollars, Rupees and at times in trade for physical goods - all of which the gobberment cares not..... as long as the taxes on on this are paid.

ust like they screw with medical marijuana dispensaries.

Different issue, and irrelevant here.

They don't like people trading in gold and silver because it is nearly impossible for the Feds to keep track of the people and their transactions.

You jest!

They have no problem "tracking you" --- do you think they are that stupid? People trade in gold everyday - in fact, it is the largest daily trade on earth, dwarfing trade in oil by a factor 10 - so you think they haven't figured that out by now???

I showed you yesterday what real money is. You don't understand.

No you didn't - you described some qualities that you thought made money better or worse.

 

[Travlyr]

And I explained to you why - and it had nothing to do with him "paying" people with gold.

You CLAIMED that. But that is not true. When in fact what happened was after the Feds drove them out of business and drug them through court system the charges were dropped. Evidently they were not doing anything illegal, but the Feds drove them out of business anyway. That's what they do.

And are you seriously going to claim that physical gold coin exchange is the largest daily trade on earth in early 2012?

 

[Travlyr]

No you didn't - you described some qualities that you thought made money better or worse.

My claim was real money is a medium of exchange by defintion. Then I presented the fact that some money is higher quality than other.

The traits that determine high quality money have been handed down through the ages and they are:
Durability, Divisibility, Desirability, Portability, and Scarcity. All money originates in the free-market.

The dollar was originally called the "taler".

Count Von Schlick

 

[Black Flag]

You CLAIMED that. But that is not true. When in fact what happened was after the Feds drove them out of business and drug them through court system the charges were dropped.

You mean this guy, right?
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/aug/14/jury-convicts-business-owner-robert-kahre-tax-frau/

A federal jury found Las Vegas businessman Robert Kahre and three others guilty Friday of several felony tax crimes, including conspiracy to defraud the IRS, tax evasion and hiding assests.

I do not believe you can claim they "dropped the charges" when the poor man is sitting in jail.

And are you seriously going to claim that physical gold coin exchange is the largest daily trade on earth in early 2012?

Nice straw man - so go back and attempt to read what I wrote - and not what you think I wrote.

 

[Travlyr]

He did not act alone. In the article I posted http://www.lvrj.com/news/46074037.html the trial had not yet been completed, so I was unaware that he was eventually put in jail.

Three of the four present defendants were among the nine people tried on similar charges two years ago, but no convictions resulted. In the 2007 trial, four others of the nine defendants, including Kahre's mother, were entirely acquitted. Two individuals were only partially acquitted, but dropped from the indictment that forms the basis for the trial before Ezra.

They are all out of business and evidently some of them didn't do anything wrong but paid the price anyway.

Paper gold may be the largest trade but paper gold is not gold. Paper gold is just another scam.