Post by: Guest on March 06, 2007, 03:46:44 PM
I would especially like to hear definitions from fans of the current system.
Post by: The Rabbi on March 06, 2007, 04:16:26 PM
Post by: Nick1911 on March 06, 2007, 04:41:55 PM
The question that's interesting involves the value of that said dollar.
Post by: Felonious Monk/Fignozzle on March 06, 2007, 05:08:26 PM
Post by: zahc on March 06, 2007, 07:37:36 PM
Post by: Art Eatman on March 07, 2007, 04:43:52 AM
I use the term as, the dollar is the medium of exchange in the US. It functions as do the Euro and Yen and all the other currencies.
, Art
Post by: richyoung on March 07, 2007, 04:47:42 AM
There are several threads concerning the dollar, fiat currency, gold/silver, trade deficit, national debt, inflation, investments, etc. Let's define "dollar" so we are all talking about the same thing.
I would especially like to hear definitions from fans of the current system.
I would especially like to hear definitions from fans of the current system.
The Constitution mentions the term "dollar" inseveral places - when it sets the amount to be in dispute to guranatee a jury trial, for one. Since no "U.S." dollar existed yet, it had to be a piece of currency that was then in common usage in what would become the United States. The most common "dollar" in use at the time was the Spanish Peso, worth eight Spanish reals, hence the term "piece of eight". Since the good King of Spain wasn't above debasing his own currency, the United States fixed the "dollar" as being equal to 412.5 grains (26.73 g) of 90% silver. Of course, we have gotten far, far away from that, with predictable bad results.
Post by: The Rabbi on March 07, 2007, 04:50:56 AM
The Constitution mentions the term "dollar" inseveral places - when it sets the amount to be in dispute to guranatee a jury trial, for one. Since no "U.S." dollar existed yet, it had to be a piece of currency that was then in common usage in what would become the United States. The most common "dollar" in use at the time was the Spanish Peso, worth eight Spanish reals, hence the term "piece of eight". Since the good King of Spain wasn't above debasing his own currency, the United States fixed the "dollar" as being equal to 412.5 grains (26.73 g) of 90% silver. Of course, we have gotten far, far away from that, with predictable bad results.
Yeah. Strongest economy in the world, 5% unemployment, highest standard of living. We're in deep deep trouble.
Post by: charby on March 07, 2007, 05:30:33 AM
Post by: richyoung on March 07, 2007, 06:25:09 AM
The Constitution mentions the term "dollar" inseveral places - when it sets the amount to be in dispute to guranatee a jury trial, for one. Since no "U.S." dollar existed yet, it had to be a piece of currency that was then in common usage in what would become the United States. The most common "dollar" in use at the time was the Spanish Peso, worth eight Spanish reals, hence the term "piece of eight". Since the good King of Spain wasn't above debasing his own currency, the United States fixed the "dollar" as being equal to 412.5 grains (26.73 g) of 90% silver. Of course, we have gotten far, far away from that, with predictable bad results.
Yeah. Strongest economy in the world, 5% unemployment, highest standard of living. We're in deep deep trouble.
Yeah, we're doing great...so long as China and japan continue to service our debt. Meanwhile, it's interesting to note that a genuine silver dime from 1964 and before is now worth...about a dollar. Meanwhile, the dolar continues its slow fade against the Euro...
Post by: The Rabbi on March 07, 2007, 07:16:43 AM
Actually 53% of all U.S. public debt is domestically owned. Yes, China and Japan account for the largest foreign holdings. But it is a market and they chose to buy those securities for a reason.
Post by: tyme on March 07, 2007, 07:28:08 AM
Post by: erik the bold on March 07, 2007, 07:50:11 AM
Yeah. Strongest economy in the world, 5% unemployment, highest standard of living. We're in deep deep trouble.
Unless you happen to live in Michigan......
8-10% unemployment, piece-o-crap demonrat govenor, even our largest bank, Comerica (namesake for the Detroit Tigers newish stadium) is leaving for Texas.Somebody don't forget to turn off the lights.
Sorry for the thread hijack.....Back to your normal conversations.....
Post by: Guest on March 07, 2007, 08:25:07 AM
Yeah. Strongest economy in the world, 5% unemployment, highest standard of living. We're in deep deep trouble.
Unless you happen to live in Michigan......
8-10% unemployment, piece-o-crap demonrat govenor, even our largest bank, Comerica (namesake for the Detroit Tigers newish stadium) is leaving for Texas.Somebody don't forget to turn off the lights.
Sorry for the thread hijack.....Back to your normal conversations.....
A dose of reality is always welcomed.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on March 07, 2007, 09:00:50 AM
Problem solved.
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 07, 2007, 09:03:33 AM
Post by: Gewehr98 on March 07, 2007, 09:12:58 AM
Quote
Change the leadership and situation in Michigan or just move.
The latter's easier than the former, as I discovered in the PRK in 1999. I did a partial-DITY move, and in that weight allowance was 300 each 30-round AK-47 mags, a request by an FFL near Sacramento because he wouldn't be able to leave the state before SB-23 went into effect. Between his Kali-banned items and mine, that Wells Cargo trailer sat mighty low...
Post by: The Rabbi on March 07, 2007, 09:29:14 AM
Change the leadership and situation in Michigan or just move.
Problem solved.
Problem solved.
Actually I suspect just bombing Detroit would have a salutary effect on the economy and political situation there.
Post by: crt360 on March 07, 2007, 12:08:39 PM
Wrong, carebear. Just plain wrong. The only way to fix that is to go back to specie, like they use in Texas.
As was evidenced by a dispute I got a call on today, some people here in Texas still accept payment in livestock. I've yet to be offered chickens for legal work, but some of the older folks have assured me it wasn't uncommon back in the day.
Post by: RevDisk on March 07, 2007, 02:41:32 PM
There are several threads concerning the dollar, fiat currency, gold/silver, trade deficit, national debt, inflation, investments, etc. Let's define "dollar" so we are all talking about the same thing.
I would especially like to hear definitions from fans of the current system.
I would especially like to hear definitions from fans of the current system.
A "Federal Reserve Note", current standard currency of the United States.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on March 07, 2007, 08:03:42 PM
It takes fifty of them for some girls to make you holler, because they get paid to do the wild thing.
Post by: CAnnoneer on March 07, 2007, 08:23:08 PM
Post by: Guest on March 08, 2007, 06:18:34 AM
I got the idea for this thread from this article:
A fairy tale world
By Hugo Salinas Price
"Money must, sine qua non, function not only as a means of exchange, but also as a means of payment.
The world, as of February 2007, does not possess a means of payment. In economic terms, payment is the exchange of something for something.".......
......"Money, properly speaking, must be definable! The dollar cannot be defined: so said Alan Greenspan himself, the Pope of Central Bankers, in reference to the dollar, which is the reserve currency of the world and which backs all other currencies. When something is not definable, it has no physical existence. A thing that has no physical existence is imaginary. An imaginary thing such as money is today, is as different from real, actual money, as an imaginary loaf of bread is different from a loaf of bread in ones hand."
Post by: Waitone on March 08, 2007, 08:15:18 AM
Post by: cosine on March 08, 2007, 08:21:35 AM
Post by: roo_ster on March 08, 2007, 08:47:12 AM
I think your quoted writer is missing out on a few things.
Money is an idea and an agreement and a convenience. Gold, paper currency, sea shells, livestock, whatever can all serve as tokens if agreed upon.
...even our largest bank, Comerica (namesake for the Detroit Tigers newish stadium) is leaving for Texas.
Somebody don't forget to turn off the lights.
Sorry for the thread hijack.....Back to your normal conversations.....
Somebody don't forget to turn off the lights.
Sorry for the thread hijack.....Back to your normal conversations.....
Well, Dallas is used to losing the big corporate fish. It is nice to land one every once in a while. What did y'all do to make them want to leave? They have been in Detroit for a furred omnivore's age.
Post by: Guest on March 08, 2007, 10:27:05 AM
MR:
I think your quoted writer is missing out on a few things.
Money is an idea and an agreement and a convenience. Gold, paper currency, sea shells, livestock, whatever can all serve as tokens if agreed upon.
I think your quoted writer is missing out on a few things.
Money is an idea and an agreement and a convenience. Gold, paper currency, sea shells, livestock, whatever can all serve as tokens if agreed upon.
Well, no one agreed to fiat curency; it was decreed. But I guess we shall see how this works out. Remember, this new condition (no commodity backing for the dollar) is only about 35 years old.
Price's main point is that when someone accepts US dollars for goods or services, no actual payment has yet been made (they have not received any corresponding goods or services).
Post by: The Rabbi on March 08, 2007, 10:31:44 AM
Lotsa luck with that half-baked theory.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on March 08, 2007, 12:54:48 PM
a dollar - a unit of collective illusion
Given that the concepts of trade and money depend upon perceptions of value, "collective illusion" is an oxymoron. If the perception truly is collective, then it isn't an illusion. If a dollar is collectively believed to be worth XYZ, then it ain't an illusion, it's a fact. That dollar is worth XYZ. When it comes to trade, perceptions are reality. This is something the fiat-phobes don't readily grasp. My FRNs have intrinsic value, by virtue of the fact that some 300 million Americans (plus a few billion foreigners) say they do. There are darned few places in the world where I wouldn't be able to trade my FRNs for something valuable.
Post by: CAnnoneer on March 08, 2007, 01:49:56 PM
Quote
When it comes to trade, perceptions are reality. This is something the fiat-phobes don't readily grasp.
People that believe so get a dose of cold objective reality on a periodic basis. Good luck with your wallpaper.
Post by: roo_ster on March 08, 2007, 05:03:16 PM
The bogus, virtual, exists-only-in-cyberspace-game currency in some of these online games is fungible in the real world. Not only that, it is is more convertable than many meat-world currencies, since the means of exchange is completely open, voluntary, and not controlled by a central authority.
They are examples of a bunch of folks getting together and deciding that some currency is worth somehting and than acting on that idea/agreement.
I think that is probably the purest example of a currency that is nothing but an agreement between free individuals to accept it. No gov't, no gold, just folks.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on March 08, 2007, 05:34:25 PM
Quote
When it comes to trade, perceptions are reality. This is something the fiat-phobes don't readily grasp.
People that believe so get a dose of cold objective reality on a periodic basis. Good luck with your wallpaper.
If you choose to rely on gold, be aware that gold's value is just as dependent upon perceptions as anything else. Unless you have an electronics factory in your back pocket, gold has zero utility value. Gold, like FRNs, are worth only what someone else will trade for them. FRNs may not have a utility value either, but at least serve as currency, backed by the perceptions and self-interests of a bazillion different people.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on March 08, 2007, 06:02:54 PM
We should use them for money.
Post by: Guest on March 09, 2007, 06:53:35 AM
Human beings, well some of them, have intrinsic value both in the short term for organs and such and in the long term as machines.
We should use them for money.
We should use them for money.
They do not store well.
Post by: The Rabbi on March 09, 2007, 07:28:17 AM
Post by: Matthew Carberry on March 09, 2007, 07:52:48 AM
Post by: Cosmoline on March 09, 2007, 07:55:04 AM
Post by: K Frame on March 09, 2007, 08:01:43 AM
If you buy into the concept, it has value.
If you don't, well, you're screwed because most other people buy into the concept.
Post by: CAnnoneer on March 09, 2007, 08:43:25 AM
Quote
The bogus, virtual, exists-only-in-cyberspace-game currency in some of these online games is fungible in the real world. Not only that, it is is more convertable than many meat-world currencies, since the means of exchange is completely open, voluntary, and not controlled by a central authority.
Sounds like World of Warcraft to me.
To be able to sell significant amounts of "gold" on ebay etc., people have to play the game a lot to "farm" it. Apparently, the game was initially balanced for a large fun factor, so getting gold and good items was no problem. However, the emerging market of conversion among "gold", "magical items", and dollars made some hardcore gamer wankers protest to Blizzard about the "farming" methods. That's no surprise since 100g could be sold for about $8, which is still a lot of money in China. In addition, hackers would try to generate their own items and sell them for dollars.
So, Blizzard became .gov and cracked down on "farming" and item exchange practices to prevent this "abuse", making the game a lot less fun for the average legal user, compromising software stability, instituting spyware and continuous monitoring, and also banning about 30,000 accounts per month on the basis of use of illegal items. So, if somebody sells you or gives you an item within the game, which happens to be flagged as counterfeit, you are automatically banned no matter if you even knew about it, thereby destroying many months of leveling on the experience treadmill. You can't protest, because customer service is overwhelmed with millions of users.
If the above sounds interesting to you as a curiosity, be sure to visit Amazon and read some customer feedback on the game. There are some amazing stories.
Post by: Guest on March 09, 2007, 09:19:30 AM
Are we back to the whole gold/silver standard nonsense again?
I only intended to have people try to define the dollar. Gold and silver bear no direct relationship to the dollar.
Now, we also have "concept", "token", "collective illusion", "specie" and "wallpaper".
Guess it isn't that easy to define the dollar.
Post by: K Frame on March 09, 2007, 09:30:23 AM
Homer's Brain: Twenty dollars can buy many peanuts!
Homer: "Explain how."
Homer's Brain: Money can be exchanged for good and services.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on March 09, 2007, 09:33:59 AM
Are we back to the whole gold/silver standard nonsense again?
I only intended to have people try to define the dollar. Gold and silver bear no direct relationship to the dollar.
Now, we also have "concept", "token", "collective illusion", "specie" and "wallpaper".
Guess it isn't that easy to define the dollar.
It's only as difficult as you make it. So quit making it difficult.
Post by: K Frame on March 09, 2007, 09:44:31 AM
"The American Dollar - symbol of opression in the world today, used in the unequitable exchange for tangible goods, such as oil, as a means of supporting America's vast hunger for resources at the expense of the poor, huddled masses both in the United States and around the globe. Also used to bribe oppressive governments that have vassaled themselves to America's corrupt leadership..."
and so forth and so on...
Post by: Gewehr98 on March 09, 2007, 10:00:28 AM
I have two adult stepsons who are very much involved in that whole WarCrack virtual game gold thing. That's all they do, from the time they get home from work until they head back to work in the morning. Sleep is an option, lord forgive them if they fall asleep at work. On weekends, it's just like the old Dungeons & Dragons thing, they see little daylight from Friday night until Monday morning.
So yeah, people are earning lots of gameplay points (or faux virtual gold, as it were). That's not so hard to believe, considering the hours spent online. In essence, they have no life, and no initiative with which to get a life. They're perfectly content with their online quest as a substitution for interaction with real people out on the street. With any luck, I *might* get them out of my house and into society on their own two feet by the time they're 30 or so. (The eldest being 27 right now)
Mike, +1000 on your MR-aligned definition of dollar. Power to the man!
Post by: Cosmoline on March 09, 2007, 11:02:57 AM
Post by: Guest on March 09, 2007, 11:19:13 AM
Are we back to the whole gold/silver standard nonsense again?
I only intended to have people try to define the dollar. Gold and silver bear no direct relationship to the dollar.
Now, we also have "concept", "token", "collective illusion", "specie" and "wallpaper".
Guess it isn't that easy to define the dollar.
I don't see that quote anywhere but I did quote Rabbi's "unit" where he said "unit of currency in the U.S." in my first wrap-up. If you want, I can edit it to include the rest.
Anyone that is satisfied with "currency of the United States" is free to exit the discussion. To me, the "dollar" still seems somewhat imaginary...an "IOU-nothing" as someone once put it.
Post by: K Frame on March 09, 2007, 11:20:46 AM
Fair enough. You're now free to exit the discussion.
Post by: Gewehr98 on March 09, 2007, 11:48:38 AM
Quote
Anyone that is satisfied with "currency of the United States" is free to exit the discussion. To me, the "dollar" still seems somewhat imaginary...an "IOU-nothing" as someone once put it.
Then how do they do things on the Lazy-H Ranch in East Texas? Lots of expensive toys there, last I looked. Are you trading chickens and eggs for tractors, diesel fuel, electricity, and groceries? You surely cannot be using those imaginary dollars.
Post by: Guest on March 09, 2007, 11:49:29 AM
"To me, the "dollar" still seems somewhat imaginary"
Fair enough. You're now free to exit the discussion.
Fair enough. You're now free to exit the discussion.
Why are you such a disagreeable person?
Post by: Guest on March 09, 2007, 12:07:35 PM
If it's so imaginary...
Then how do they do things on the Lazy-H Ranch in East Texas? Lots of expensive toys there, last I looked. Are you trading chickens and eggs for tractors, diesel fuel, electricity, and groceries? You surely cannot be using those imaginary dollars.
Quote
Anyone that is satisfied with "currency of the United States" is free to exit the discussion. To me, the "dollar" still seems somewhat imaginary...an "IOU-nothing" as someone once put it.
Then how do they do things on the Lazy-H Ranch in East Texas? Lots of expensive toys there, last I looked. Are you trading chickens and eggs for tractors, diesel fuel, electricity, and groceries? You surely cannot be using those imaginary dollars.
Of course I'm using them for purchases. I also use them to save and invest. That's why I worry about their future.
Actually, another reason I started this thread is that I just purchased the ARRL 2006-7 Repeater Directory (ham radio) to replace the 1997 one I had and noticed that the new one was several dollars more for the same darned thing. Guess there's a few more "dollars" now than there were in '97.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on March 09, 2007, 12:08:12 PM
Post by: K Frame on March 09, 2007, 12:14:17 PM
You're the one who keeps disagreeing with people.
Many people have given you their definitions for the dollar, and you predicate everything with this: "To me, the "dollar" still seems somewhat imaginary...an "IOU-nothing"
That tells me that the only thing you're really looking for are definitions that SUPPORT your version of what the dollar is. If it doesn't match what you want to hear, you reject it.
Have you ever really LOOKED at a dollar bill?
This statement is on the front, and is on the front of every US bill: "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private."
As a tender issue by the Government, it is, to quote a quote, backed by the full faith and trust of the US Government.
FAITH.
TRUST.
That means that your dollar isn't backed by a comparable quantity of a tangible good, such as gold. It's not a gold or a silver certificate bill.
It means, as I said, that the currency of the United States is a CONCEPT. That WE accept it, and use it, instead of going to a goods for services barter system (I wonder how many chickens it would take to pay my mortgage) means that we also accept the concept that the US dollar has value that exceeds that of the ink, cloth, and labor that goes into producing it.
Obviously, though, none of these definitions really meets your "gold standard" so to speak.
Post by: The Rabbi on March 09, 2007, 12:39:25 PM
Post by: RevDisk on March 10, 2007, 06:47:16 PM
"To me, the "dollar" still seems somewhat imaginary"
Fair enough. You're now free to exit the discussion.
Fair enough. You're now free to exit the discussion.
To be fair, the dollar's value is entirely imaginary. It's worth what everyone believes it is worth. Technically, it is not backed by anything non-imaginary.
Yes, yes, full faith and trust. When anyone actually HAS full faith and trust in the govt, let me know.
Post by: roo_ster on March 10, 2007, 08:00:49 PM
BUt, it becomes real as soon as you exchange it for goods or services. Unless gasoline, fast food, and lawyers on retainer are imaginary, too.
Post by: The Rabbi on March 11, 2007, 04:47:32 AM
"To me, the "dollar" still seems somewhat imaginary"
Fair enough. You're now free to exit the discussion.
Fair enough. You're now free to exit the discussion.
To be fair, the dollar's value is entirely imaginary. It's worth what everyone believes it is worth. Technically, it is not backed by anything non-imaginary.
Yes, yes, full faith and trust. When anyone actually HAS full faith and trust in the govt, let me know.
Even if it were "backed" by something, it is still imaginary. Gold is no more real than a dollar bill, as its value depends on people's willingness to exchange it for goods and services.
All money is "imaginary" in that sense as money is simply a proxy for goods and services.
Post by: K Frame on March 11, 2007, 05:01:18 AM
Yep, and that all harks back to my contention that the dollar is a CONCEPT.
An object's value only exists if two or more people agree on it.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on March 11, 2007, 10:12:39 AM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on March 11, 2007, 07:10:47 PM
To be fair, the dollar's value is entirely imaginary. It's worth what everyone believes it is worth. Technically, it is not backed by anything non-imaginary.
Yes, yes, full faith and trust. When anyone actually HAS full faith and trust in the govt, let me know.
You don't need to trust the government to trust the dollar. All you need to trust is that dollars are generally accepted by everyone else to be a valuable form of payment, which is obviously true. There is nothing imaginary about it.
Yes, yes, full faith and trust. When anyone actually HAS full faith and trust in the govt, let me know.
Post by: richyoung on March 13, 2007, 06:15:14 AM
Even if it were "backed" by something, it is still imaginary.
If it were "backed" by something, the government couldn't create new "dollars" out of thin air, without the capability of redeeming them in whatever its backing is, at par value. In fact, most of the "Panics" and such blamed on soldi currency are in fact the result of issuing more "backed" currency than the government had backing for - this is why setting weights and measures and coining money was delegated to Congress - if they wanted to keep their jobs, they wouldn't debase the currency. What we get now, is a long, steady inflation of the currency, because there is no backing. This is a de facto tax increase in three ways: it enables the .gov to pick the pockets of any one holding dollars by stealing some of the held dollars value, it enables the .gov to push more currency out without a corresponding increase in revenue - that is to say, the politicians get to buy votes with pork without the attendant political pain of taxing, AND they get to obligate future taxpayers to pay for it all, plus interest.
Quote
Gold is no more real than a dollar bill, as its value depends on people's willingness to exchange it for goods and services.
...care to point out any time in modern history it WASN'T? As long as women like jewelry, and as long as certain industrial processes need it, it will have intrinisic value.
Post by: The Rabbi on March 13, 2007, 07:53:32 AM
Would you care to name a time in modern history when people would not accept Federal Reserve Notes? And they are far more accepted the world over for goods and services than gold. Go to Paris and try giving the waiter a gold sovereign for your meal.
Post by: Guest on March 15, 2007, 10:52:02 AM
To be fair, when you ask folks to "define a dollar" and then deny any of the definitions given are valid, you kinda set people up to get frustrated with you.
I apologize for any frustration I caused. I admit that I wanted to provoke disagreement and discussion about the definition. I consider it worth the risk to attempt to convince members to question the present fiat dollar system. Any time one challenges peoples' worldviews there is bound to be some pain.
The author of the article is a noted Austrian, hard-money economist and according to him, the US dollar is not able to be defined in strict economic terms.
Post by: K Frame on March 15, 2007, 10:57:58 AM
That, boy, is a textbook definition of a troll.
Next time why don't you try the "honesty" up front instead of being a smarmy, sneaky little prick about it.
"according to him, the US dollar is not able to be defined in strict economic terms."
That description is applicable to EVERY nationally issue currency currently used anywhere in the world.
Post by: Guest on March 15, 2007, 11:07:03 AM
"To me, the "dollar" still seems somewhat imaginary"
Fair enough. You're now free to exit the discussion.
Fair enough. You're now free to exit the discussion.
To be fair, the dollar's value is entirely imaginary. It's worth what everyone believes it is worth. Technically, it is not backed by anything non-imaginary.
Yes, yes, full faith and trust. When anyone actually HAS full faith and trust in the govt, let me know.
Thank you. This is the point of the thread. I warn that this faith and trust can evaporate in a very short time period - like between dusk and dawn.
Post by: Gewehr98 on March 15, 2007, 11:08:54 AM
Quote
according to him, the US dollar is not able to be defined in strict economic terms.
So the Euro is?
Back to trading chickens and eggs, but how many chickens for each monthly mortgage payment, and which bank is going to accept said chickens?
Post by: Guest on March 15, 2007, 11:14:55 AM
So, in other words, you came here with the avowed purpose of fomenting discord as a means of furthering one of your personal pet peeves.
That, boy, is a textbook definition of a troll.
Next time why don't you try the "honesty" up front instead of being a smarmy, sneaky little prick about it.
That, boy, is a textbook definition of a troll.
Next time why don't you try the "honesty" up front instead of being a smarmy, sneaky little prick about it.
But Mike, you can't complain about being trolled; you didn't even post until a day after I had come clean by posting the article (which was only 12+- hours after I started the thread.)
Post by: Guest on March 15, 2007, 11:17:56 AM
Quote
according to him, the US dollar is not able to be defined in strict economic terms.
So the Euro is?
Back to trading chickens and eggs, but how many chickens for each monthly mortgage payment, and which bank is going to accept said chickens?
No one mentioned the Euro. Salinas Price says, "The world, as of February 2007, does not possess a means of payment."
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 15, 2007, 11:22:49 AM
Quote
I consider it worth the risk to attempt to convince members to question the present fiat dollar system. Any time one challenges peoples' worldviews there is bound to be some pain.
The problem with this approach (of which I am sometimes guilty) is that it is condescending to a group of people that don't appreciate the insult to their intelligence. You always seem to think that you are the only that has questioned "the system," and that we need you to come along and open our eyes. The truth, however, is that many members of APS have long ago considered the kinds of things you believe in, but dismissed them. If your point of view is correct, just explain it and tell us why we should agree with you. Don't treat us like mindless drones who need rescuing. Like I said, I've been down that road many times, and it doesn't further useful conversation.
Post by: K Frame on March 15, 2007, 11:33:02 AM
So, in other words, you came here with the avowed purpose of fomenting discord as a means of furthering one of your personal pet peeves.
That, boy, is a textbook definition of a troll.
Next time why don't you try the "honesty" up front instead of being a smarmy, sneaky little prick about it.
That, boy, is a textbook definition of a troll.
Next time why don't you try the "honesty" up front instead of being a smarmy, sneaky little prick about it.
But Mike, you can't complain about being trolled; you didn't even post until a day after I had come clean by posting the article (which was only 12+- hours after I started the thread.)
No, boy, you "came clean" just now when you finally admitted that your primary intent was to provoke disagreement.
Before that, your motives were veiled and on their face false.
For once, I agree with Fistful's assessment.
Post by: The Rabbi on March 15, 2007, 11:50:23 AM
The author of the article is a noted Austrian, hard-money economist and according to him, the US dollar is not able to be defined in strict economic terms.
First off, he isn't Austrian. He's a Mexicano.
Secondly, he isn't an economist. He's a businessman.
Third, the fact that his "middle" name (I dont know the correct term for this) is Salinas, which is also the name of a past president, leads me to believe he has some connection to politics and thus some kind of agenda.
So I think we've established he has no more credentials than I do. We can certainly define the dollar in "strict economic terms" (whatever that means) as:
"The unit of currency in use by the U.S." We can further define currency as "money" and money as "a store of value for exchange for goods and services."
So you have failed to show that the current system is anything other than what it is. As for faith evaporating overnight: it hasn't happened yet and there is no reason to think it will in the foreseeable future. Anything beyond that is idle speculation, like whether Fistful will make an honest woman of Brittany Spears.
Post by: tyme on March 15, 2007, 02:04:47 PM
Quote from: mercedesrules
Of course I'm using [dollars] for purchases. I also use them to save and invest. That's why I worry about their future.
Congratulations. By repeatedly pointing out that the dollar has no backing, and even asserting (incorrectly) that the concept of a dollar (or, presumably, any numeraire) is "imaginary" (it's real enough that our society basically runs on money), you undermine others' faith in the currency system, leading to more inflation (affecting your savings) and more market volatility (negatively affecting your investments, unless you invest heavily in commodities or engage in sophisticated derivatives trading... in which case presumably you wouldn't be complaining about the "fiat" currency system.).
Post by: K Frame on March 15, 2007, 02:37:03 PM
Why?
Because I don't think anyone here is really that stupid that they don't understand at least the elementary basics of the US economic system, and they recognize him for the hypocrite that he is.
I also find it to be highly amusing that our economic system is supposedly so bereft that confidence in the American dollar is going to wither up and blow away in a short period of time. That supposition shows absolutely no grasp of US history and the assaults that our economic system has withstood.
Somehow, even in the darkest days of the Depression, World War II, etc., poverty, racial violence, basic faith in the viability and durability of the US economic system remained intact. Taxed, stressed, strained, but intact.
So tell us, Mercedes, just what might this event be that would cause, OVERNIGHT, faith in the dollar to evaporate like water?
Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama either elected or defeated for president?
The Cubs winning the World Series?
You chatting on the internet about how you don't believe in the dollar, but then admitting that you're a monumental hypocrite in that you use the dollar for your own personal gain and convenience?
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on March 15, 2007, 07:19:34 PM
Quote
according to him, the US dollar is not able to be defined in strict economic terms.
So the Euro is?
Back to trading chickens and eggs, but how many chickens for each monthly mortgage payment, and which bank is going to accept said chickens?
No one mentioned the Euro. Salinas Price says, "The world, as of February 2007, does not possess a means of payment."
By definition, an item's value is equal to whatever one can trade it for on the open market. Dollars can be traded for damned near anything, anytime, anywhere. To say that they have no value or that they aren't a means of payment is just plain stupid. Each and every financial transaction that takes place in this country proves your premises false.
You're being deliberately obtuse. Stop.
Post by: richyoung on March 16, 2007, 04:24:02 AM
I hope you're not suggesting that a gold standard would eliminate inflation, because it won't. There are abundant examples of inflation even with a gold standard.
I don;t forsee any events like conquereing the America's or Sutter's Mill in hte near future - and that's the kind of event it takes to spark inflation in a solid currency world - either that or deliberate debasing of the coinage.
Quote
Would you care to name a time in modern history when people would not accept Federal Reserve Notes?
until 1972, the dollarwas still redeemable in gold internationally - so until then, when people accepted Federal reserve notes, they WERE accepting gold. After that, the dollar was the official medium of payment for OPEC - essentially, the dollar was backed by oil - (actually, the willingess to convert dollars into oil - "petro-dollars"). THAT support for the FRN is going away - Iraq was in the process of doing so, with Iran and Venuzuela following suit. This reaises the specter of a domino effect, as every other country scrambles to not be left "holding the (dollar) bag".
Quote
And they are far more accepted the world over for goods and services than gold. Go to Paris and try giving the waiter a gold sovereign for your meal.
I've been to France...try paying for your meal with Federal Reserve notes and see what happens....
Post by: K Frame on March 16, 2007, 04:35:19 AM
As stated, he's not an Austrian, unless the Austrians invaded Ole Mexico.
As pointed out, he's not an economist. He's a business owner -- appliance stores.
He also is the foremost Mexican proponent of going back onto the silver standard. In other words, William Jennings Bryant moved south of the border.
But here's the kicker...
In every one of his hundreds of alliance stores there's apparently a branch of Banco Aztec. It's Salinas' personal bank, which extends credit to his uncreditworthy countrymen. As such it provides a very valuable service, but it's also a source of great profit for the man.
For him, returning to a silver-based currency in Mexico would do a lot to stabilize his personal business empire and would remove a lot of worries about the fluctuating price of the Mexican peso. Why not a gold standard? Because Mexico is the world's largest producer of silver.
Salinas isn't so much decrying the concept that the world's "money" has no value.
He's decrying the fact that Mexico is sitting on top of what he believes to be an economic windfall in the form of coinable silver.
Hey Mercedes, once you figure out that Snr. Salinas is an advocate of the silver standard just as a means of increasing his personal wealth, what's that do to your estimation of him? Feel a little let down?
Post by: The Rabbi on March 16, 2007, 05:05:26 AM
Quote
And they are far more accepted the world over for goods and services than gold. Go to Paris and try giving the waiter a gold sovereign for your meal.
I've been to France...try paying for your meal with Federal Reserve notes and see what happens....
What will happen is they will send the notes out to an exchange and bring you back Euros.
When I was in Hungary in 1991 we bought tickets to Bratislava, then in Czechoslovakia. We couldn't pay in forints or in krona. But we could and did pay in U.S. dollars. Paying in gold coin was not an option.
Gold today is worthless as a currency. As a medium of exchange it has as much value as pork bellies or orange juice.
Post by: richyoung on March 16, 2007, 07:23:15 AM
Quote
And they are far more accepted the world over for goods and services than gold. Go to Paris and try giving the waiter a gold sovereign for your meal.
I've been to France...try paying for your meal with Federal Reserve notes and see what happens....
What will happen is they will send the notes out to an exchange and bring you back Euros.
NO. What will happen, (or at least, DID happen, when I was there), is you had francs on you, or you didn't BUY. Period. They no more took dollars than the local McDonaolds takes Euros. Some Easter European countries have been so desperate for any hard currency that they provide this service as a courtesy to touristas. Not France.
Post by: The Rabbi on March 16, 2007, 07:25:36 AM
In many places, like Israel, they price things both in shekels and dollars and you take your pick.
Fact remains: the dollar is the most widely circulating currency and is far more accepted than gold.
Post by: K Frame on March 16, 2007, 09:21:40 AM
What?
What the hell twilight zone were you in?
In the summers of 1981 and 1983 I spent a total of about 6 weeks in France, Belgium, Holland, Germany, Switzerland, and Austria.
Even in the smallest towns the shop keepers were happy to accept dollars at that day's published exchange rate.
Many of the places even had an exchange rate chalk board on which they would write that day's exchange rate for various currencies.
In Paris just about every store we walked into accepted dollars as a matter of standard practice. The only places that didn't accept dollars were the smallest street vendors/kiosks.
Yes, it was easier to get currency exchanged in a local bank before going shopping (or at the cashier at the hotel, if it had one) because it cut down on the amount of coins and bills that you were carting around from various nations.
Post by: Guest on March 16, 2007, 10:48:20 AM
Quote
I consider it worth the risk to attempt to convince members to question the present fiat dollar system. Any time one challenges peoples' worldviews there is bound to be some pain.
The problem with this approach (of which I am sometimes guilty) is that it is condescending to a group of people that don't appreciate the insult to their intelligence. You always seem to think that you are the only that has questioned "the system," and that we need you to come along and open our eyes. The truth, however, is that many members of APS have long ago considered the kinds of things you believe in, but dismissed them. If your point of view is correct, just explain it and tell us why we should agree with you. Don't treat us like mindless drones who need rescuing. Like I said, I've been down that road many times, and it doesn't further useful conversation.
Touché.
Post by: Guest on March 16, 2007, 10:57:33 AM
The author of the article is a noted Austrian, hard-money economist and according to him, the US dollar is not able to be defined in strict economic terms.
First off, he isn't Austrian. He's a Mexicano.
Secondly, he isn't an economist. He's a businessman.
Third, the fact that his "middle" name (I dont know the correct term for this) is Salinas, which is also the name of a past president, leads me to believe he has some connection to politics and thus some kind of agenda.
So I think we've established he has no more credentials than I do. We can certainly define the dollar in "strict economic terms" (whatever that means) as:
"The unit of currency in use by the U.S." We can further define currency as "money" and money as "a store of value for exchange for goods and services."
So you have failed to show that the current system is anything other than what it is. As for faith evaporating overnight: it hasn't happened yet and there is no reason to think it will in the foreseeable future. Anything beyond that is idle speculation, like whether Fistful will make an honest woman of Brittany Spears.
From the first paragraph of the link:
"HUGO SALINAS PRICE, 75, is a retired businessman who lives in Mexico. He has been a follower of the Austrian School of Economics since his youth."
Sorry if some misunderstood "Austrian, hard-money economist" (A long-time student of Austrian economics that advocates commodity money).
Post by: The Rabbi on March 16, 2007, 11:12:37 AM
"Mexican businessman who has studied the Austrian school of economics and is dedicated to hard money." Wordy, yes.
Post by: K Frame on March 16, 2007, 11:19:09 AM
I've been a hard-core fan of the Philadelphia Phillies since my youth.
Maybe that makes me a professional baseball player?
Post by: richyoung on March 16, 2007, 11:42:28 AM
"NO. What will happen, (or at least, DID happen, when I was there), is you had francs on you, or you didn't BUY. Period. "
What?
What the hell twilight zone were you in?
In the summers of 1981 and 1983 I spent a total of about 6 weeks in France, Belgium, Holland, Germany, Switzerland, and Austria.
What?
What the hell twilight zone were you in?
In the summers of 1981 and 1983 I spent a total of about 6 weeks in France, Belgium, Holland, Germany, Switzerland, and Austria.
In 1977 through 1979, I was LIVING in Europe.
Quote
Even in the smallest towns the shop keepers were happy to accept dollars at that day's published exchange rate.
They darn sure didn;t when I was there - of course, thanks to Jimmy Carter, it was trading at 1.21 mark to the dollar, so that may have had somehting to do with it...
Quote
Many of the places even had an exchange rate chalk board on which they would write that day's exchange rate for various currencies.
The ONLY place I ever went that accepted foreign currency was East Germany/East Berlin, where they would happily accept West German marks for East German marks - at 1 for 1, (they traded at 1 to 8 at the time, so you can see why...) or the Yankee capitalist dollar at... 1 for 1 (traded at 1 to 12).