Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It largely depends on how you define a pie, actually.
If you define a pie as a baked good that presently exists sitting on a counter then, no, you can't count 12 pies when only 3 exist.
But if you define a pie as a product constituted of flour and shortening and sugar and cherries and labor, something that can be made to order or defined and given a coupon for, then you could count or borrow more than just the number of baked goods sitting on the counter.
You also seem to be leaning toward a definition of money being best fixed to a limited commodity such as gold or silver.
[NO. The law defines it that way. But that is part of money madness.]
And that can work ok when the majority of things being traded are also physical things. But what happens when the majority of what is being traded is services? Then you have a situation where intangible things (hours of work or, even worse, ideas) with potentially unlimited supply become available against a finite system of payment. How do you get growth when any new idea has to not only be able to beat other ideas theoretically, but financially pull resources away from physical items like food and housing? If you believe that an idea can make a society richer, how does that meld with a resource constraint in how to account for it financially? A fiat currency allows some expansion for intangible things.
[Federal Reserve Notes are not fiat. They are debt. The main concern is the obligated party on those notes.]
And that's probably a good thing, because if gold can beat a good idea most of the time, how many people are going to focus on good ideas versus becoming miners?
You're missing the point.
The money mad system imposes a scarce and finite money token supply - a choke point for trading in a dynamic marketplace of goods and services. Yet leads us to believe there is plenty of money tokens by pretending that they're an unreal abstraction.
Despite the eCONomist's claim that inflation is "too much money chasing too few goods," everyone knows there is a money token drought.
When you ask "Why are there unemployed?" Ans: No jobs.
"Why are there no jobs?"
Ans. No one has money to hire them. "Why are there people with unmet needs, unemployment, and closed factories?"
Ans. No one has money.
"Something" is not quite right, when a money drought can impoverish a money mad world.
And since CONGRESS has no power to "create" new money, and banks certainly have no power to create money, pray tell us how can NEW money be created?
Dollar is not money. It's obligatory notice. nearly all contemporary money systems are based on fiat money.[4]Fiat money, like any check or note of debt, is without use value as a physical commodity. It derives its value by being declared by a government to be legal tender; that is, it must be accepted as a form of payment within the boundaries of the country, for "all debts, public and private".
OP, I think what you hinting to is actual exchange notice, not money. I ow ten pies, my worth is say 5 exchange notices, or notes value of them secured by pies I have. You have 15 drooklets, and ten exchange notices, backed by value of drooklets. We can trade, or exchange those notes. It's g'ol barter derivative.
Nowadays money as such is nothing more than pixels on a screen.
That also includes your favorite gold or any other metal. Have at it, eat it. Drink it.
Btw, here's origins of money. IN and Yan. They produce Power and Sex. Power and Sex produce Money, as money gives its possessor Power. Think about it. When you have money, you really do not have a value of an object or something else. You have Power to acquire an object. To hire a person and have Power over him. And so on. It's much much deeper than simple shiny this or that.
Dollar is not money. It's obligatory notice. nearly all contemporary money systems are based on fiat money.
Your belief does not match the law.
1. Dollar bills are not money.
But a unit dollar is lawful money, pursuant to the USCON.
However, since 1933, no dollars have circulated, which adds to the confusion.
2. Fiat money is money that has value by decree, whereas a unit dollar is a silver coin, and an eagle is a gold coin.
3. Federal Reserve notes are not fiat because they are debt. Unlike FIAT, where no one is liable for redemption, obligated parties ARE obligated on FRNs. 12 USC Sec. 411 lists the government as an obligated party - but they reneged in 1933. Guess who else is an obligated party? (Hint : involves signing up as a "contributor" and getting a number).
The function of a medium of exchange is to facilitate trade when simple barter is insufficient.
There are many non-money mediums - private promissory notes (i.e. coupons) - casino chips - bus tokens - and so forth.
You're wrong.
Don't believe me - the law states otherwise.
REAL MONEY - Money which has real metallic, intrinsic value as distinguished from paper currency, checks and drafts.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed. p. 1264
MONEY - In usual and ordinary acceptation it means coins [real money] and paper currency [certificates - receipts] used as a circulating medium of exchange, and does not embrace notes, bonds, evidences of debt, or other personal or real estate. Lane v. Railey, 280 Ky. 319, 133 S.W. 2d 74, 79, 81.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed. p. 1005
NOTE - An instrument containing an express and absolute promise of signer (i.e. maker) to pay to a specified person or order, or bearer, a definite sum of money at a specified time. An instrument that is a promise to pay other than a certificate of deposit. U.C.C. 3-104(2)(d)
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed. p. 1060
(A federal reserve NOTE / aka / "dollar bill" is not money. A certificate is.)
LAWFUL MONEY - "The terms 'lawful money' and 'lawful money of the United States' shall be construed to mean gold or silver coin of the United States..."
Title 12 United States Code, Sec. 152.
TITLE 12,CHAPTER 3,SUBCHAPTER XII,sec. 411. Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation; redemption
" Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said notes shall be OBLIGATIONS of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in LAWFUL MONEY on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank."
The dollar bill (FRN) is an IOU, issued on the authority of Congress to BORROW money.
. . .
Coinage Act of 1792
"Dollars, or units; each to be of the value of a Spanish milled as the same is now current, and to contain three hundred and seventy-one grains and four-sixteenths parts of a grain of pure, or four hundred and sixteen grains of standard, silver."
"Eagles each to be of the value of ten dollars or units, and to contain two hundred and forty-seven grains and four eighths of a grain of pure, or two hundred and seventy grains of standard gold."
--- Sec. 9, Coinage Act of 1792, January 1792
". . .Federal Reserve notes are not redeemable in gold, silver or any other commodity, and receive no backing by anything. This has been the case since 1933. The notes have no value for themselves. . . "
. . .
Based on the preceding, we know that since 1933, no MONEY has circulated, real or otherwise. Worthless IOUs (debt) have been used to cheat people and steal their property rights.
Is that a "concept" we understand?
Colloquial definition:
MONEY - A medium that can be exchanged for goods and services and is used as a measure of their values on the market, including among its forms a commodity such as gold, an officially issued coin or note, or a deposit in a checking account or other readily liquefiable account.
Money is NOT an abstract mathematical concept, but a medium of exchange for goods and services. That there can never be proportionality between money and the marketplace is but one aspect of its INSANITY. And those who control the volume and value of money tokens rule those who are MADDENED by it.
However, usury (interest) IS mathematically unsustainable in a finite money token system. The exponential equation used for compound interest requires an INFINITE money supply, which makes it impossible to function over the long term.
(Do the math: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_value)
No school of eCONomics dare denounce usury as an abomination and a scam. So much for the "science" aspect.
Money madness IS a way to cheat people without their knowledge, because few people understand what it involves, believing in myths, lies and soundbites.
Your a goof.
The same reason my online bank statement is worth anything is the reason King Tut's gold was worth anything: people agree that it is worth a certain amount. There's nothing intrinsic about a metal, unless your using that metal industrially. It's just a store of value, like bits in a hard drive can be.
Legitimacy is only in the hands of the purchaser. What the government declares or does not declare does not matter.
You're wrong.
Don't believe me - the law states otherwise.
No, I am not wrong. I am speaking of the usage of what is called in English "money" over a historical time frame. You are basing all of your arguments on definitions written into law in a single country. And then using tin-foil arguments to complain because the government that originally wrote the definitions you are citing had the gall to change the definitions.
Are you one of those "US courts have no power over me because they have gold fringes on the flags" types?
Back to this quote:
Quote:
MONEY - A medium that can be exchanged for goods and services and is used as a measure of their values on the market, including among its forms a commodity such as gold, an officially issued coin or note, or a deposit in a checking account or other readily liquefiable account.
It's definitely an abstract concept.
As long as everyone agrees that a "dollar" is worth something, then it is worth something. It is a concept.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
However, usury (interest) IS mathematically unsustainable in a finite money token system. The exponential equation used for compound interest requires an INFINITE money supply, which makes it impossible to function over the long term.
(Do the math: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_value)
Interest IS mathematically sustainable in a finite money token system... because it's a mathematical concept, and the tokens are just pieces of paper with numbers on them (or more realistically, numbers on a computer screen). As the numbers get higher and higher over time, the government just recycles the old bills and prints new ones with bigger numbers. Two hundred years ago the average person might never see a $100 bill in a lifetime, and a $20 was rare. The majority of daily transactions were done in change (a penny was quite valuable). These days most people wouldn't even slow down to look at a penny on the sidewalk, and I've got a several paper $100 bills stashed away for emergencies. In another hundred years pocket change will be non-existent and $500 bills will be as common as $50's are today.
But a unit of money is only worth something if everyone agrees it's worth something. And it doesn't have to be paper money that loses value. If you are full (not hungry), dry, and healthy, you could sell an ounce of pure gold today for about $1200. If it were a period of economic collapse or even TEOTWAWKI and you are starving, that same ounce of gold loses a lot of value. You can't do anything useful with it. Why would I want to trade my food for your useless yellow metal?
Money is an abstract concept. Gold is a physical object, but it's value as money is an abstract concept.
Despite all the interesting responses, none addressed the fundamental point - by law, what is being used for a medium of exchange is not money, nor in compliance with the constitution.
What you believe (or joke about) is not reality.
Until you grasp the distinction, you won't comprehend why free Americans who once were endowed with rights, transformed into serfs, needing government permission. And this permission even extends to retail trade (licensed businesses are the ones taxed - but they pass on the sales tax to their customers).
Laugh and joke, but it is a sad commentary on the decline of educated people in these united States.
If the economic system is based on insanity and ignores constitutional law, then what is it?
In 1836 John Whipple, an American lawyer, showed the impossibility of sustaining long term metallic usury in this fashion:
" If 5 English pennies... had been invested ... at 5 per cent compound interest from the beginning of the Christian era until the present time, it would amount in gold of standard fineness to 32,366,648,157 spheres of gold each eight thousand miles in diameter, or as large as the earth."
To pay usury over the long term, would require THIRTY TWO BILLION EARTH SIZED SPHERES OF GOLD. (Is that impossible enough for you?)
Since an infinite money supply is impossible, the net result is default / bankruptcy by a portion of debtors who can not pay their debts because ENOUGH MONEY NEVER EXISTS. But economists, from Adam Smith, onward, don't seem to notice this fact. (Usurers call themselves "capitalists" but in truth, they prey upon owners of property - the real capitalists.)
Still unconvinced?
To illustrate the unsustainability of usury:
How long does it take for the investment to match whole sum of money tokens?
Future Worth (FV), based on Present Value (PV)
FV = PV x (1+ interest)^time
Let N = total sum of money tokens
Let PV = 0.1N = 10% of N, the amount invested at 6% per annum, compounded daily
How long does it take for the investment to match whole sum of money tokens?
(N/0.1N) = (1 + .06/365)^ time units
Solving for time units
time units = log (N/0.1N) / log (1 + .06/365)
time units = log (1/0.1)/ log (1 + .06/365)
14008.54 days
38.37 years
After this point, the outstanding obligation will exceed the whole set of money tokens, making repayment IMPOSSIBLE.
In other words, if all the people invested 10% of their money at 6% APR, they’d go bust in 38.37 years, owing (or being owed) all the money that exists. Any further investment past that period cannot be repaid. The exponential equation for calculating compound interest requires an infinite money supply. That is a fact about usury. Due to the finite money supply, all debtors can not repay their debts. That is a fact about usury.
In the short term, a portion of debtors will default simply because enough money never existed for them to repay. They will lose their pledged collateral, blaming themselves or their bad luck not realizing that usury was the reason. That, too, is a fact about usury.
That is also why “privatizing” Socialist InSecurity would not be viable. Any widespread “investment” at usury could not be sustained, since the money token supply is finite.
"Money" is and always has been an abstract mathematical concept, and you apparently just can't grasp the concept.
Yes, it is possible for someone to claim to have a net worth of 10 pies even though only 3 pies exist. Just as it's possible for someone to have a net worth of -3 pies (i.e., they owe the value of three pies to someone else), even though it's impossible to have a negative pie. A single unit of currency has a set value that is established in relationship to something else. Say a pie is equal to 10 sacks of flour which is equal to two bushels of berries which is equal to half an hour of physical labor. You can trade a pie for any of those other things in a barter system.
Even back in the day of metal coins (gold, silver, copper, tin, bronze, etc.) money had two values... a "real" value (i.e., the worth of the actual metal in the coin) and the "abstract" mathematical value (the worth that society agreed was represented by the image on the coin).
Going even farther back, look at the "worth" of pure gold. Why is it worth so much? It's useless as a structural metal because it's so soft. Back before the time gold was needed in corrosion-resistant electronic connections it was mostly useless as a tool to keep yourself fed or clothed. But it had value because it was been deemed "pretty" and won't tarnish. It has been used in jewelry throughout history. People who could afford jewelry were seen as being "wealthy", so gold became a status symbol. It became an abstract concept of wealth. Over time gold gained more value than its intrinsic worth as a pure metal.
A piece of cloth (US currency is printed on cloth, linen and cotton, not paper) with specific ink on it in a specific pattern is "worth" exactly as much as people let it be worth. People around the world assign value to the dollar, so it is "worth" something. Right now it's worth about one vending machine candy bar. People who think like you and consider the US Dollar to be worthless are hording gold, thinking for some reason it has some type of worth and that it will retain that worth in a time of economic collapse.
But think about it. If you are starving, then what good is gold to you? You can't eat it or use it to obtain food or shelter in any way. Unless, someone else who has food decides to place an abstract value the gold and agrees to trade food for your otherwise useless chunk of soft yellow metal.
I miss Douglas Adams
“This planet has — or rather had — a problem, which was this: most of the people living on it were unhappy for pretty much of the time. Many solutions were suggested for this problem, but most of these were largely concerned with the movements of small green pieces of paper, which is odd because on the whole it wasn’t the small green pieces of paper that were unhappy.”
~from one of the Hitchhiker's Guides to the Galaxy.
& who, in the present day, is unaware of the economic phenomenon, Mr. Adams's brilliant Shoe Event Horizon?
“Many years ago, this was a thriving, happy planet – people, cities, shops, a normal world. Except that on the high streets of these cities there were slightly more shoe shops than one might have thought necessary. And slowly, insidiously, the numbers of these shoe shops were increasing. It’s a well known economic phenomenon but tragic to see it in operation, for the more shoe shops there were, the more shoes they had to make and the worse and more unwearable they became. And the worse they were to wear, the more people had to buy to keep themselves shod, and the more the shops proliferated until the whole economy of the place passed what I believe is termed the Shoe Event Horizon, and it became no longer economically possible to build anything other than shoe shops. Result – collapse, ruin and famine. Most of the population died out. Those few who had the right kind of genetic instability mutated into birds – you’ve seen one of them – who cursed their feet, cursed the ground, and vowed that none should walk on it again. Unhappy lot.”
~Douglas Adams from The Restaurant at the End of the Universe.
Money Blind?
=\=\=\=
Let’s get our reality straight.
Prosperity is NOT based on money.
Proof?
Tell me who is the prosperous person:
Mr A : who has a mountain of money tokens, but nothing to buy with them
-or- Mr B : who has produced a prodigious surplus of usable goods and services, which he trades with others.
Obviously, Mr B is the prosperous man (in reality). But to those who are “money mad,” the fortune in tokens is more desirable, whether or not they’re of any use.
The masters of money madness rely on our indoctrinated madness to desire money in order to trade, because all other avenues have been cut off, by law or custom. We’re trained to ‘need money’ in order to survive, and that means the money masters rule us, by virtue of scarce money. Governments support the madness by imposing tax burdens only payable in money. Fail to pay - suffer the penalty. D’Oh!
And even poverty is caused by money - not the lack of money. Consider what would happen if everybody woke up tomorrow, knowing that they had bank balances of 22 billion billion quatloos (a substantial sum!). Everyone is equally wealthy. They would never “need” money ever again. But does that eliminate poverty? Of course not. Without the need for money, why would anyone bother to go work, sweat, toil, farm, mine, fabricate, transport and trade? With nothing to buy, all that money is worthless, useless, and meaningless.
In reality, survival would compel us to be productive. But under money madness, we’re blind to reality. The simple fact is that we must be prodigiously productive because that is what civilized people do. All other lifestyles that involve avoiding labor and living a life of indolent consumption are contrary to reason and uncivilized, as well as inequitable - shifting the burden upon others for their support and sustenance.
I think you went broke using those 50 cent words...
Despite all the interesting responses, none addressed the fundamental point - by law, what is being used for a medium of exchange is not money, nor in compliance with the constitution.
Then spend all your dollars and buy gold or silver. Enjoy your wealth. Or even better, if what you say has any bearing on reality, feel free to sue the US government for changing a law that they wrote. You may win. But don't be surprised if your lawyer insists on being paid in US Dollars, whether you consider that to be "money" or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
Until you grasp the distinction, you won't comprehend why free Americans who once were endowed with rights, transformed into serfs, needing government permission. And this permission even extends to retail trade (licensed businesses are the ones taxed - but they pass on the sales tax to their customers).
Laugh and joke, but it is a sad commentary on the decline of educated people in these united States.
If the economic system is based on insanity and ignores constitutional law, then what is it?
Your tin foil hat is showing. Other than pointing out that "rights" has nothing to do with debate in question which is over the definition of "money", I really can't comment because what you said is just beyond comprehension.
In 1836 John Whipple, an American lawyer, showed the impossibility of sustaining long term metallic usury in this fashion:
" If 5 English pennies... had been invested ... at 5 per cent compound interest from the beginning of the Christian era until the present time, it would amount in gold of standard fineness to 32,366,648,157 spheres of gold each eight thousand miles in diameter, or as large as the earth."
To pay usury over the long term, would require THIRTY TWO BILLION EARTH SIZED SPHERES OF GOLD. (Is that impossible enough for you?)
Since an infinite money supply is impossible, the net result is default / bankruptcy by a portion of debtors who can not pay their debts because ENOUGH MONEY NEVER EXISTS. But economists, from Adam Smith, onward, don't seem to notice this fact. (Usurers call themselves "capitalists" but in truth, they prey upon owners of property - the real capitalists.)
Still unconvinced?
To illustrate the unsustainability of usury:
How long does it take for the investment to match whole sum of money tokens?
[bunch of math... I enjoy math, but just go with REALLY REALLY REALLY HUGE NUMBERS]
After this point, the outstanding obligation will exceed the whole set of money tokens, making repayment IMPOSSIBLE.
In other words, if all the people invested 10% of their money at 6% APR, they’d go bust in 38.37 years, owing (or being owed) all the money that exists. Any further investment past that period cannot be repaid. The exponential equation for calculating compound interest requires an infinite money supply. That is a fact about usury. Due to the finite money supply, all debtors can not repay their debts. That is a fact about usury.
No, it IS NOT. I highlighted key phrases above.
You seem stuck on the idea that money must be represented by a physical object. This may have been true several hundred years ago, but it is not true now. Wake up and try to understand. Money is a concept of worth that is used as an intermediary for bartering. Instead of trading a chicken for a week of labor, or loaning a physical sack of grain expecting interest of two sacks after the harvest, you trade in money. The laborer gets a set amount of money for the labor, and then trades the money for the chicken. For a long time people used physical tokens to represent money, but that time is long past.
Originally the laws written by the US government were based on the old way of physical tokens, but they abandoned that concept and changed the laws.
Going back to the 1836 John Wipple quote (seriously... don't you realize it's the 21st Century?), his statement only makes sense if the only way to represent money is with physical tokens. It isn't. Conveniently in the 21st century, money can be represented by numbers printed on colored cloth, or even just pixels on a computer screen. Assuming the time-traveling Wipple investor (how else would English pennies find their way back to the time of Christ?) found a government willing to honor his millenia-old claim to umpteen bazillion-trillion English pennies, honoring the debt would be a simple matter of electronically transferring the money into his account. Done. Money is a concept, not a physical object. Accept it.
You also seem to love using impossible scenarios to prove your point. Take, "if all the people invested 10% of their money at 6% APR". This is an impossible scenario. "Investing" is another word for "loaning". I.e., if you are "investing" money you are in reality "loaning" money to someone else. So if I'm "investing" money in a company by buying stock in that company, I'm "loaning" money to that company (or in reality, the original investor loaned money to the company; I'm just buying the loan from someone else).
If everyone on the planet simultaneously loans out 10% of their money, who would they loan it to? Some impossible mythical entity? Some random bank? Each other? If a mythical entity, then the entity could magically conjur up all the money it needs. If a bank, it would be in possession of so much money it would be beyond governmental laws. The bank officers would just use the money to buy a continent and tell the rest of humanity to just shove off; they'd never have to pay anything back. If to each other they would be earning and paying interest to each other simultaneously, for a net gain/loss of zero.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
