New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

The budget, the deficit, the debt, and the dollar

Days

Commentator
Currency literally means the printed money in circulation. But the idea of printing money is used broadly to refer to the creation of money, whether it is hard copy or the much more abundant electronic currency. So, about 7 years ago I started using the term currency to represent all the money in circulation, paper and electronic. That's the real currency of the 21st Century and I think mainstream economic thought is using the term the same way I do... it just makes more sense.

Previously, I talked about how a fiat currency is not real money with intrinsic value like gold or silver, it is a synthetic money with ascribed value, created by the laws of the state... in today's global economy, that mostly is done through a central bank. This is a top-down system, meaning that the currency is created in bulk by the banks, of the banking system, and for the banks. This is in contrast to real money which is generated at the street level through trade, by the market, of the wealth, for the commercial interests generating wealth. As such, a synthetic money represents wealth, but is not in and of itself wealth. Not only so, synthetic money can be created and destroyed by contract, whereas real money has to be mined and minted and is indestructable.

When a nation is 100% using synthetic money, like most nations do, the economy is no longer measuring actual trade or real wealth or the generation of real wealth. The fiat economy measures the flow of currency, hence it is a measure of how much synthetic money has been created and traded and destroyed... so it can be very deceiving, it is really a measure of banking activity, not actual trade. Trade drives banking activity, so it is related. But 21st Century banking can create and destroy more currency intra-banking than it does for the trade of the nation. Currently, global banking is creating and destroying about ten times as much currency for intra-banking than it does for world trade. That would seem to render the GDP numbers completely pointless, and it would except most of the intra-banking currency isn't counted in the GDP. Nevertheless, banking derivatives and the carry trade are part of the global currency. But they are contained in their own market, they are not traded for milk at the local 7-11; otherwise milk would cost hundreds of dollars.

If I haven't gotten you confused , frustrated, and angry yet... here's where I wanted to arrive in this post. The federal budget has been snow balling debt for quite some time. By snow-balling I mean that every year it goes a little more out of balance and rolls up more and more debt; like a snowball getting bigger and bigger when you make it. I wrote this ten years ago, folks, it keeps happening because of the nature of the currency; that's how we knew the market was going to crash and that's how we knew there would be trillion dollar deficits, it didn't just happen over night, it has been coming on for 80 years, like a ticking clock, ever since FDR put us 100% on synthetic debt currency.

Now, that's another term; debt currency. Since the deficits result in bonds (debt) and those bonds are used as asset/reserves by the banks to loan money, and since the loans are what create the currency in the market, the currency is created from the bonds (the debt)... hence, it is debt currency. Economies run on money supply the same way an engine runs on fuel. So realize this; in our current system of money, the debt fuels the economy. When politicians talk about cutting the deficit and growing jobs at the same time (as the current presidential candidates love to promise) they are talking an oxymoron; you either grow the debt or you cut the debt, which will in turn grow the economy or shrink it. That's why debt currency sucks. That's why gold bugs or silver bugs (I'm the only one left, born a century too late) want to return to real money for currency, because with real money you can generate wealth in the market and tax it and use those taxes to pay down the debt... which is exactly what politicians claim they are doing, but isn't possible with debt currency; you have to have real money to do that.

So you are being lied to. BIG TIME. But now, why does Wooley go nuts when Ron Paul wants to return to gold currency? Because Ron Paul is nuts! We have this enormous debt to pay, if you return to real money, you have to really pay it! With real money! The banks would love that. The only reason the banks are not behind Ron Paul is because they know the government has no money to pay their debt. What I have been saying is this; introduse a silver coin into local markets at the state level; go back to the Constitution for the part that says our states have to disburse real money and deal in real money. In order to do that, you would need to allow the states to enter into the creation and destruction of currency. NOT make their own money, but enter into the national currency. I am the lone voice in America calling for this... and it is our only hope. Laws of escheat return the land to the state; in our Republic, the state is the rightful owner of all the land and you hold title with the state. Therefore, it would make an enormous amount of sense to grant our states the power to bank that real estate. In doing so, all the land would be mortgages would be owed to the state which makes sense since the state owns the land... not the banks. Ever wonder why property taxes are paid to the state? Because of laws of escheat... the state is the rightful owner of all the land and they can take it back any time they please... that's why it is called eminent domain; in essence, the state is the king and the land is the domain or dominion of the state... a kingdom. Our real estate laws are directly derived from English common law... half a millennium old. So don't scream at me and call me a communist; I'm worse than that; I'm a mortgage banker... you guys just don't know real estate.

Well since my dream of repairing America's currency will never happen. The next best thing is for the US Treasury to return the power of fiat back to itself (the Federal Reserve Act built a central bank attached to the Treasury and borrowed the authority of the Treasury... it needed to do that to empower itself as a fiat, there is no central bank in the Constitution) ... or at least return a degree of the fiat back to the Treasury by printing dollars in US Notes, instead of Federal Reserve Notes. Kick the damn central bank out of the mints! Look at that. Now the central bank has to borrow the money from the Treasury instead of the current adulteration of printing central bank notes with our mints and forcing the Treasury to borrow its own money from the central bank. Of course this goes beyond hard copy. The Treasury has to do this electronically as well. Once you return the power of money creation to the government, the government will begin to rule over the banks instead of the current adulteration where the banks are ruling over governments. Banks are awful rulers. Money is a hard master. Austerity is the real terror on the planet today.
 

NightSwimmer

Senator
Two questions:

1. What is the "intrinsic value" of either gold or silver versus lead or iron?

2. Why did we decide to remove control of the money supply from the Congress to begin with?
 
If you advise a unilateral move to take the US dollar back to gold or silver, you will invite a worldwide economic depression that no one has ever experienced before and will make the 1930s look like a cakewalk. There is one central theme to your thoughts though which I agree with and so does Keynes and many other renowned economic thinkers. That is the simple fact that uncontrolled lending without strong reserve requirements leads inevitably to a collapse of an economy. The problem today is that the finances of one country are so intertwined in those of another country that in order to pull this off, it must be a global decision not a national one. We can lead this by imposing strict restrictions upon the expansion of personal credit, the forgiveness of parts of our personal credit overhang and by changing the tax code to reward the fruits of labor over capital. Take the incentives out of speculation and it will cease to be a factor.
 

Days

Commentator
two answers:

1) the intrinsic value of gold, silver, lead, and iron in today's currency floats on the market. (Remember gold went over $2000/oz.? Years ago in moneybox, when gold was still in the historic $400-$500 range and the world's currencies were over inflated, I was preaching "buy gold" because central banks use gold as an asset reserve for their currency and the currency war with the euro was heating up and I knew it would drive up the intrinsic value of gold... which it did)

The idea of intrinsic value is simple; gold or silver is real money, it is wealth exchanging hands. When Hitler was rolling tanks all over europe and wanted to buy oil from the Kurds, they asked for payment in gold; what they got was one million in gold and ten million in gold bonds... the gold had intrinsic value, when nazi Germany collapsed, the gold retained its value... the gold bonds had ascribed value; intrinsically, gold bonds are just paper, when nazi Germany collapsed, the ascribed value of the bonds collapsed with it; the debtor who owed the gold was gone; the paper survived and eventually went up in value to one billion dollars if you could get modern Germany to honor her war bonds... but you can't; and ascribed value is ascribed by the fiat; hence, fiat money is only as strong as the fiat ascribing it value.

So the idea of intrinsic value is the nature of the money and the nature of the market. Supply and demand in a real economy moves real wealth around. Supply and demand in a fiat economy moves accounting around, but the gold stays put...

2) We never removed control of the money supply from Congress. A Thaler (pronounced "dollar" in Spanish) is a silver coin. Obviously, the minter decides how many grains of silver to put into his coin; in America, Congress is supposed to decide that. What Congress removed was the silver dollar (late 1860's US Grant signed the bill) ... the Constitution was never changed. Silver is still our legal money and Congress is still the fiat in control of the weights and balances of the currency. Legally.

The Federal Reserve Act was not a Constitutional Amendment, but it did change the nation's money. So it was an illegal bill. That said... Congress does a lot of illegal stuff, like raiding the government trust funds... but this was the bill signed in 1913 by Woodrow Wilson that changed the money. 1913 also was the year that the Constitution was amended to allow an income tax... so the illegal money is being legally administered. (Income taxes were set up as a cash flow for the new central bank).

What I think you are driving at in these two questions is how did our money change from intrinsic value set by Congress to ascribed value set by the central bank... and the answer is we switched out the currency. We completely removed the former Constitutional money and replaced it with the central bank currency. The process lasted from the late 1860's to the early 1930's.
 
Hitler could not pay in German marks because he inflated them so much that they were worthless outside of Germany. At the time, only gold or silver could be used as an international exchange unit because most of the world was still on the gold standard. Once nations dropped the gold standard, they all started coming out of the depression. As for the true value of gold, during a period of time right after we dropped the gold standard, every morning FDR would have coffee and set the new price for gold on a whim. There are two different value systems going on here. One is the value of a currency within a nation and that can be whatever it takes to make that nations goods and services values worthy of intra-national commerce. The other is what others will pay for your currency in exchange for exports or as payment for imports. That is a totally different matter altogether.
 

Days

Commentator
I like Ron Paul for president because he would try to re-introduce real money. Not in my wildest dreams do I think he would really shut down the FED... I don't even think the apocalypse in the bible goes that far. Maybe it does, maybe the whole planet is switching back to gold, maybe that is what threatens to wipe out the human species... it would certainly do the trick.

No, I just want to re-introduce a silver coin ALONGSIDE our fiat currency. follow the yellow brick road. Just like the gold dollar was side by side with the paper dollar from 1914-1932. That was a transitional period, but it set a precedent for dual markets... no different than the compartmentalized fiat markets. If Goldman Sachs mortgage derivatives could be used to buy silver, the price of silver would be ridiculous. Minting a silver coin would not change the value of silver, but it would change the nature of our currency... we would have some intrinsic money back in circulation; not a bad idea when you look at how shaky the fiat currency is becoming.

As for clamping down on expansion of the fiat currency... good luck with that. I preached that for years and i came to the conclusion that you are fighting the nature of the currency; pushing a rock uphill. It's easier to switch out the currency.
 

Lobato1

Mayor
Why blame FDR? One way or another FDR's bucks were still pegged to gold standard

& it was the Republican Nixon that took us away from it.

Nive try though, try again.

Best Regards

Lobato1


Currency literally means the printed money in circulation. But the idea of printing money is used broadly to refer to the creation of money, whether it is hard copy or the much more abundant electronic currency. So, about 7 years ago I started using the term currency to represent all the money in circulation, paper and electronic. That's the real currency of the 21st Century and I think mainstream economic thought is using the term the same way I do... it just makes more sense.

Previously, I talked about how a fiat currency is not real money with intrinsic value like gold or silver, it is a synthetic money with ascribed value, created by the laws of the state... in today's global economy, that mostly is done through a central bank. This is a top-down system, meaning that the currency is created in bulk by the banks, of the banking system, and for the banks. This is in contrast to real money which is generated at the street level through trade, by the market, of the wealth, for the commercial interests generating wealth. As such, a synthetic money represents wealth, but is not in and of itself wealth. Not only so, synthetic money can be created and destroyed by contract, whereas real money has to be mined and minted and is indestructable.

When a nation is 100% using synthetic money, like most nations do, the economy is no longer measuring actual trade or real wealth or the generation of real wealth. The fiat economy measures the flow of currency, hence it is a measure of how much synthetic money has been created and traded and destroyed... so it can be very deceiving, it is really a measure of banking activity, not actual trade. Trade drives banking activity, so it is related. But 21st Century banking can create and destroy more currency intra-banking than it does for the trade of the nation. Currently, global banking is creating and destroying about ten times as much currency for intra-banking than it does for world trade. That would seem to render the GDP numbers completely pointless, and it would except most of the intra-banking currency isn't counted in the GDP. Nevertheless, banking derivatives and the carry trade are part of the global currency. But they are contained in their own market, they are not traded for milk at the local 7-11; otherwise milk would cost hundreds of dollars.

If I haven't gotten you confused , frustrated, and angry yet... here's where I wanted to arrive in this post. The federal budget has been snow balling debt for quite some time. By snow-balling I mean that every year it goes a little more out of balance and rolls up more and more debt; like a snowball getting bigger and bigger when you make it. I wrote this ten years ago, folks, it keeps happening because of the nature of the currency; that's how we knew the market was going to crash and that's how we knew there would be trillion dollar deficits, it didn't just happen over night, it has been coming on for 80 years, like a ticking clock,


ever since FDR put us 100% on synthetic debt currency.




Now, that's another term; debt currency. Since the deficits result in bonds (debt) and those bonds are used as asset/reserves by the banks to loan money, and since the loans are what create the currency in the market, the currency is created from the bonds (the debt)... hence, it is debt currency. Economies run on money supply the same way an engine runs on fuel. So realize this; in our current system of money, the debt fuels the economy. When politicians talk about cutting the deficit and growing jobs at the same time (as the current presidential candidates love to promise) they are talking an oxymoron; you either grow the debt or you cut the debt, which will in turn grow the economy or shrink it. That's why debt currency sucks. That's why gold bugs or silver bugs (I'm the only one left, born a century too late) want to return to real money for currency, because with real money you can generate wealth in the market and tax it and use those taxes to pay down the debt... which is exactly what politicians claim they are doing, but isn't possible with debt currency; you have to have real money to do that.

So you are being lied to. BIG TIME. But now, why does Wooley go nuts when Ron Paul wants to return to gold currency? Because Ron Paul is nuts! We have this enormous debt to pay, if you return to real money, you have to really pay it! With real money! The banks would love that. The only reason the banks are not behind Ron Paul is because they know the government has no money to pay their debt. What I have been saying is this; introduse a silver coin into local markets at the state level; go back to the Constitution for the part that says our states have to disburse real money and deal in real money. In order to do that, you would need to allow the states to enter into the creation and destruction of currency. NOT make their own money, but enter into the national currency. I am the lone voice in America calling for this... and it is our only hope. Laws of escheat return the land to the state; in our Republic, the state is the rightful owner of all the land and you hold title with the state. Therefore, it would make an enormous amount of sense to grant our states the power to bank that real estate. In doing so, all the land would be mortgages would be owed to the state which makes sense since the state owns the land... not the banks. Ever wonder why property taxes are paid to the state? Because of laws of escheat... the state is the rightful owner of all the land and they can take it back any time they please... that's why it is called eminent domain; in essence, the state is the king and the land is the domain or dominion of the state... a kingdom. Our real estate laws are directly derived from English common law... half a millennium old. So don't scream at me and call me a communist; I'm worse than that; I'm a mortgage banker... you guys just don't know real estate.

Well since my dream of repairing America's currency will never happen. The next best thing is for the US Treasury to return the power of fiat back to itself (the Federal Reserve Act built a central bank attached to the Treasury and borrowed the authority of the Treasury... it needed to do that to empower itself as a fiat, there is no central bank in the Constitution) ... or at least return a degree of the fiat back to the Treasury by printing dollars in US Notes, instead of Federal Reserve Notes. Kick the damn central bank out of the mints! Look at that. Now the central bank has to borrow the money from the Treasury instead of the current adulteration of printing central bank notes with our mints and forcing the Treasury to borrow its own money from the central bank. Of course this goes beyond hard copy. The Treasury has to do this electronically as well. Once you return the power of money creation to the government, the government will begin to rule over the banks instead of the current adulteration where the banks are ruling over governments. Banks are awful rulers. Money is a hard master. Austerity is the real terror on the planet today.
 
Silver? What makes it so special? The world is awash in silver. How much would you hold in reserve for a certain amount of currency in circulation? How would you control banks that make loans? Credit cards? How about derivatives? There is NOTHING special about silver or gold that a sound banking system could accomplish using the exact same idea but doing it without tying and supply of money to a finite resource or one that needs to be discovered in order to increase the money supply. The money supply MUST increase or we stagnate, we deflate, we collapse in a run on assets and banks just as we learned in one bank disaster after another up until the 1930s. Ron Paul is a complete idiot in regards to money and economics. None of his policies or the economists he adores have been put in place for a reason, they do not work.
 

Days

Commentator
I'm not blaming FDR, I am pointing at when it happened. In this particular case, FDR gave the executive order to both close all the banks in America and confiscate their gold (but it was obviously at the bidding of the Wall Street banks). FDR also gave the executive order to stop minting the gold dollar. So, if you are looking to blame someone for the currency, I guess FDR fit the bill. My main goal in that top post was to cover enough ground to get the idea across that a fiat currency stretches and shrinks, and that it does that through the national debt. So if you are cutting the deficit, you are shrinking the debt, and it will shrink the economy. That is absolute. But it is the fiat economy; the amount of currency in circulation; which sits on top of the real economy. Once you understand how that works, you understand why the presidential candidates promises are mere exercises in semantics.
 
Days...the federal debt is mice nuts compared to personal debt. Personal debt is created by your local bank, the mortgage industry, your credit card, your car loan, the layaway plan at Target, the school loan industry and so on. Come on, I know you love this stuff so why focus on something that can be paid off tomorrow if the treasury wanted? Personal debt is the key to understanding our economy.
 

Days

Commentator
Hitler was a great science experiment in currency. First of all, he came into power at the collapse of the Mark; so that was a remarkable path to power. The Treaty of Versailles demanding large payments to France was what caused the Weimar Republic to over inflate their currency; making it worthless at home. Hitler lived through that. I think Hitler was more of a banker than anything else, that's why he was so ruthless. He understood the need to expand the backing of the currency when expanding the currency. Hitler went after land and gold and for awhile built an international currency worth its salt. His was also a vision for one world government, and his gold became the asset/reserve for the euro and the world bank. Hitler's empire collapsed faster than any empire in history, even Persia fell slower to Alexander. But the Mark simply receded with the collapse. It wasn't long before the German Mark was expanding again and then this folding together of national currencies into the euro was in itself the greatest experiment with international currency ever tried. There is all those different nations with their national economies operating on - and creating and destroying - the same currency.

Granting US states the right to bank their lands, and granting them access to creating and destroying the dollar; but not 50 different dollars; just granting them access to the US dollar creation, would be less difficult than what is being done with the euro. The states can run a balanced budget because the banks still have the federal debt to bank on. It would level the currency and spread the wealth... and make no mistake, the wealth needs to be spread; if a fiat currency is not spread around sufficiently, it stops working and collapses. Corporate Greed is destroying our fiat economy. But anyway, I'm decentralizing the Republic, returning power to the states and to the people... so I'm not a communist after all, except when it comes to mortgage banking and control of the land, there I'm a state government communist; if there ever was such an animal.
 

Days

Commentator
You keep thinking I'm trying to turn over the system to silver. I'm not. I'm just trying to add a silver currency to it. I want a local market place trading in real money as part of the greater fiat currency and global market. Why? Because silver has intrinsic value. It is a backstop to the legal tender. If the world economy collapses and the dollar goes down with it (because it is the global petrodollar of world trade far more than it is buying milk at the local grocery store) ... I want a silver dollar already established on main street America that will march right into the grocery store and buy milk and also ship goods to market and keep the populace from starving.
 

Days

Commentator
All your local banks are reeled in by the federal reserve system. It begins with Treasuries and then it gets expanded by central banks worldwide and then it gets expanded again by nations and states and giant warehouses of trade like the NYSE and then it gets expanded again by local banks and commercial interests and retail markets; credit does not trickle down it expands and expands and expands. But it starts with deficits. Deficits do matter in the federal reserve currency; deficits grow our fiat economy... the amount of credit in circulation. But deficits are the feed source; the expansion or contraction is enacted by the central bank; that's the real fiat in this system; they either stretch or contract the bonds they are working with, and frankly, that's where deficits don't matter because who is going to call them on that? But personal debt is enabled or disabled by the policies of the FED.
 

Lobato1

Mayor
FDR closed banks huh? You & I have a different "1930" history & as I wrote before:

10-11-2011, 06:44 PM#1
Lobato1
Achievements:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Join Date: Sep 2011Posts: 1,699 Points: 8,170 Level: 27 Post Thanks / Like ::::::

In 2010 Americans voted for GOP traitors putting party above country

The GOP trash avowed to work for Prez Obama's failure & they have worked tirelessly to realize their objectives even if it implied bringing down our Country.


One of the most devious schemes they came up with was to advocate for Americans to make a run on the banks when our economy was in a free fall in April 2009.


Should Americans had followed the GOP lead to make a run on the banks, very few Americans realize the catastrophic results that would have brought America to her knees a 2nd time from the dark days that ensued on December 10, 1930.


Specifically; Americans today associate the stock market crash in October1929 as the culprit that led to the Great Depression & nothing could be further from the truth. The stock market in fact had plunged to half it’s value (52.1% in exact numbers), from it’s all time peak of 381.7 down to 198.69 but by the following year, 1930 had recovered practically all it’s loses reaching 294.07 (77.4% from the all time peak).



AMERICA FALLS TO HER KNEES DECEMBER 1930:

On December 10, 1930, a small merchant went to withdraw his savings at the then "Bank of the United States" in The Bronx where he then claimed the Bank refused to give him his monies & which that Bank management would subsequently avow they had told him to come back later. What is true is that the man did not get his monies & panic ensued throughout America as depositors would run to their banks only to find these bank's doors closed & collapsing one after the other until March of 1933 when [R] Prez Herbert Hover mercifully left office.


80 years later, Americans can’t possibly phantom how our Country ran out of dollar bills but this is exactly what happened & among the many victims were farmers going into bankruptcy because they had to throw away their perishable produce since there was no money.


On a personal note (take it or leave it), my Mother would proudly tell me stories as to how my Grandfather would pay out of his own pocket, his patient’s hospital bills & accept chickens, eggs or whatever in return.


On a tragic anecdote for those that have seen the movie, "The Best Little *****house in Texas," that bordello was named, "The Chicken Farm” because in that unfortunate era the poor prostitutes accepted chickens since our Country started bartering in species to survive.



THE AMERICAN FUTURE BY GOPers



Now these same bastards have avowed to bring Prez Obama down & make him a one term President in the future they foresee for America by among other things:


Toning down Medicaid, Medicare, Soc. Sec etc., etc, while giving some 700Billion in additional tax cuts for the rich & if need be & reminiscent of the Clinton era shut down Government.


My Reference: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_11/026520.php#more




God help America because we are screwed.

Sad.

Best Regards

Lobato1


Best Regards

Lobato1










I'm not blaming FDR, I am pointing at when it happened. In this particular case, FDR gave the executive order to both close all the banks in America and confiscate their gold (but it was obviously at the bidding of the Wall Street banks). FDR also gave the executive order to stop minting the gold dollar. So, if you are looking to blame someone for the currency, I guess FDR fit the bill. My main goal in that top post was to cover enough ground to get the idea across that a fiat currency stretches and shrinks, and that it does that through the national debt. So if you are cutting the deficit, you are shrinking the debt, and it will shrink the economy. That is absolute. But it is the fiat economy; the amount of currency in circulation; which sits on top of the real economy. Once you understand how that works, you understand why the presidential candidates promises are mere exercises in semantics.
 

Days

Commentator
FDR wasn't elected until 1932. He took office in the Spring of 1933. On the 6th day of his first term, not quite one whole week in office, he shut down every bank in America for a period that lasted beyond a month. The banks then confiscated all the gold held in their vaults and it was rounded up and shipped to Fort Knox. I never said 1930, I said in the early 1930's.

...hard as it is to imagine, the top post isn't about the Fall election.
 

degsme

Council Member
Hitler was a great science experiment in currency. First of all, he came into power at the collapse of the Mark; so that was a remarkable path to power. The Treaty of Versailles demanding large payments to France was what caused the Weimar Republic to over inflate their currency; making it worthless at home. Hitler lived through that. I think Hitler was more of a banker than anything else, that's why he was so ruthless. He understood the need to expand the backing of the currency when expanding the currency. Hitler went after land and gold and for awhile built an international currency worth its salt. His was also a vision for one world government, and his gold became the asset/reserve for the euro and the world bank. Hitler's empire collapsed faster than any empire in history, even Persia fell slower to Alexander. But the Mark simply receded with the collapse. It wasn't long before the German Mark was expanding again and then this folding together of national currencies into the euro was in itself the greatest experiment with international currency ever tried. There is all those different nations with their national economies operating on - and creating and destroying - the same currency.

Granting US states the right to bank their lands, and granting them access to creating and destroying the dollar; but not 50 different dollars; just granting them access to the US dollar creation, would be less difficult than what is being done with the euro. The states can run a balanced budget because the banks still have the federal debt to bank on. It would level the currency and spread the wealth... and make no mistake, the wealth needs to be spread; if a fiat currency is not spread around sufficiently, it stops working and collapses. Corporate Greed is destroying our fiat economy. But anyway, I'm decentralizing the Republic, returning power to the states and to the people... so I'm not a communist after all, except when it comes to mortgage banking and control of the land, there I'm a state government communist; if there ever was such an animal.
Godwin's Law... You LOSE.
 

degsme

Council Member
You keep thinking I'm trying to turn over the system to silver. I'm not. I'm just trying to add a silver currency to it. I want a local market place trading in real money
How is silver any more "real money" than what we have now? They both are EXPECTED VALUE storage units. NEITHER has nay 'real value' beyond what the market will bear.

That's the part you don't seem to get.
 

Days

Commentator
What you are saying is that both real money and synthetic money have a current market value... quite true; I do get that. There is more to money than current market value. For instance, a silver coin would store that current market value more than long enough to keep profits from being over run by inflation, while a fiat note is susceptible to daily shifts in value. The expected value on a silver coin is rock steady while no one has any idea what to expect day to day for value on a fiat note. If you earned $200 in 1960, and stored $100 in silver half dollars and stored the other $100 in a paper Benjamin Franklin, and took the money out today, how would each of them have stored value?
 
Top