Post by: yesitsloaded on November 16, 2007, 02:05:20 PM
Quote
Feds Raid 'Liberty Dollar' HQ in Ind.
By RYAN LENZ 1 hour ago
EVANSVILLE, Ind. (AP) Federal agents raided the headquarters of a group that produces illegal currency and puts it in circulation, seizing gold, silver and two tons of copper coins featuring Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul.
Agents also took records, computers and froze the bank accounts at the "Liberty Dollar" headquarters during the Thursday raid, Bernard von NotHaus, founder of the National Organization for the Repeal of the Federal Reserve Act & Internal Revenue Code, said in an interview.
The organization, which is critical of the Federal Reserve, has repeatedly clashed with the federal government, which contends that the gold, silver and copper coins it produces are illegal. NORFED claims its Liberty Dollars are inflation free and can restore stability to financial markets by allowing commerce based on a currency that does not fluctuate in value like the U.S. dollar.
"They're running scared right now and they had to do something," von NotHaus told The Associated Press Friday. "I'm volunteering to meet the agents and get arrested so we can thrash this out in court."
According to the company, NORFED has produced an estimated $20 million of its own paper currency in the past two decades, claiming its $1, $5 and $10 denominations were backed by silver stored in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho.
Federal agents also raided the group's storage facilities in Idaho, von NotHaus said.
Wendy Osborne, a spokeswoman for the FBI's Indianapolis office, declined to comment and referred all questions to the U.S. attorney's office for the Western District of North Carolina. Suellen Pierce, a spokeswoman for that office, also declined to comment.
In a federal seizure warrant given to the AP by von NotHaus, federal agents allege the money and other properties seized in the raid were linked to money laundering, mail fraud and wire fraud.
The raid comes eight months after von NotHaus filed a lawsuit in federal court in Evansville seeking a permanent injunction to stop the federal government from labeling the Liberty Dollar an illegal currency.
The U.S. Mint issued a warning this year that the Liberty Dollar violated the Constitution and warned consumers against using them unsuspectingly.
Paul's campaign said it had not authorized production of the Ron Paul dollars.
"We have no connection with that," said Jesse Benton, a campaign spokesman for Paul. "He was using Ron as a marketing technique. We didn't have anything to do with that or sanction it or give permission in any way."
By RYAN LENZ 1 hour ago
EVANSVILLE, Ind. (AP) Federal agents raided the headquarters of a group that produces illegal currency and puts it in circulation, seizing gold, silver and two tons of copper coins featuring Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul.
Agents also took records, computers and froze the bank accounts at the "Liberty Dollar" headquarters during the Thursday raid, Bernard von NotHaus, founder of the National Organization for the Repeal of the Federal Reserve Act & Internal Revenue Code, said in an interview.
The organization, which is critical of the Federal Reserve, has repeatedly clashed with the federal government, which contends that the gold, silver and copper coins it produces are illegal. NORFED claims its Liberty Dollars are inflation free and can restore stability to financial markets by allowing commerce based on a currency that does not fluctuate in value like the U.S. dollar.
"They're running scared right now and they had to do something," von NotHaus told The Associated Press Friday. "I'm volunteering to meet the agents and get arrested so we can thrash this out in court."
According to the company, NORFED has produced an estimated $20 million of its own paper currency in the past two decades, claiming its $1, $5 and $10 denominations were backed by silver stored in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho.
Federal agents also raided the group's storage facilities in Idaho, von NotHaus said.
Wendy Osborne, a spokeswoman for the FBI's Indianapolis office, declined to comment and referred all questions to the U.S. attorney's office for the Western District of North Carolina. Suellen Pierce, a spokeswoman for that office, also declined to comment.
In a federal seizure warrant given to the AP by von NotHaus, federal agents allege the money and other properties seized in the raid were linked to money laundering, mail fraud and wire fraud.
The raid comes eight months after von NotHaus filed a lawsuit in federal court in Evansville seeking a permanent injunction to stop the federal government from labeling the Liberty Dollar an illegal currency.
The U.S. Mint issued a warning this year that the Liberty Dollar violated the Constitution and warned consumers against using them unsuspectingly.
Paul's campaign said it had not authorized production of the Ron Paul dollars.
"We have no connection with that," said Jesse Benton, a campaign spokesman for Paul. "He was using Ron as a marketing technique. We didn't have anything to do with that or sanction it or give permission in any way."
Post by: v35 on November 16, 2007, 02:45:08 PM
What can you say about a government that prohibits free choice, making the essence of capitalism illegal, and forces its citizens to use worthless paper in their private transactions?
So these liberty dollars were used in money laundering. So were a lot of the bills in your pocket, and they bear traces of cocaine to prove it. Will the FBI seize that too?
Post by: Manedwolf on November 16, 2007, 02:53:59 PM
Quote
4. Simply offer The Liberty Dollar with the confidence that it will be accepted. After all, why wouldn't it? When you offer the American Express Card, if it is not accepted, they tell you. Likewise, if the store does not accept Liberty Dollars, the cashier will tell you and you can simply pay another way.
5. "Do the Drop!" The best way to introduce the Liberty Dollar is to drop the Silver Liberty in someone's hand. Do not hand it to the cashier, Drop it! Hold a one-ounce Silver Liberty a couple inches above the outreached palm and drop it so it lands flat in the person's palm.
6. Now the hardest part - don't say anything! Just wait. Let the person marvel at its beauty, weight, and discover it says TWENTY DOLLARS. When asked "Is it real?" Answer: "Yes, one ounce of silver PRIVATE currency valued at 20 dollars." Do not rush. Just stand there and wait, patiently. No need to smile. Just wait.
7. After 30 seconds, say, "I have US government legal tender money too [show the cashier FRN cash], but would prefer to pay with silver." If the cashier hands it back immediately, you may ask her to show the currency to the manager, or just pay some other way.
8. Never use a Silver Liberty alone unless the sale is greater than $10 and less than $20. If the total is greater than $20, include the Silver Libertys with FRNs.
5. "Do the Drop!" The best way to introduce the Liberty Dollar is to drop the Silver Liberty in someone's hand. Do not hand it to the cashier, Drop it! Hold a one-ounce Silver Liberty a couple inches above the outreached palm and drop it so it lands flat in the person's palm.
6. Now the hardest part - don't say anything! Just wait. Let the person marvel at its beauty, weight, and discover it says TWENTY DOLLARS. When asked "Is it real?" Answer: "Yes, one ounce of silver PRIVATE currency valued at 20 dollars." Do not rush. Just stand there and wait, patiently. No need to smile. Just wait.
7. After 30 seconds, say, "I have US government legal tender money too [show the cashier FRN cash], but would prefer to pay with silver." If the cashier hands it back immediately, you may ask her to show the currency to the manager, or just pay some other way.
8. Never use a Silver Liberty alone unless the sale is greater than $10 and less than $20. If the total is greater than $20, include the Silver Libertys with FRNs.
SERIOUS NO-NO. That's encouraging fraud, telling people to use a coin with a metal (silver) spot value of under $15 as if it was legal tender worth $20.
And sorry, people, study your economics and Constitution. The power to mint money IS part of the federal government, and it's right there in the Constitution!
This isn't big bad government. It's a guy getting caught in his ignorance trying to make a buck. Don't think it's anything otherwise. Put away the tinfoil, and that's an airliner passing, not a black helicopter.
Quote
The U.S. Mint issued a warning this year that the Liberty Dollar violated the Constitution and warned consumers against using them unsuspectingly.
Guess what. They're correct.
Quote
What can you say about a government that prohibits free choice, making the essence of capitalism illegal, and forces its citizens to use worthless paper in their private transactions?
Okay, you're embarassing yourself there with your ignorance. You never studied this stuff, I take it.
Post by: yesitsloaded on November 16, 2007, 03:09:23 PM
Post by: v35 on November 16, 2007, 04:50:11 PM
And sorry, people, study your economics and Constitution. The power to mint money IS part of the federal government, and it's right there in the Constitution!
Show me. .... I'm still waiting....
I'll save you the time. It's not there. The Constitution says, right up there in Article I, Section 8 :
Quote from: The Framers
Congress shall have the power to ... coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of Foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
Coin. Not print, or mint, or whatever else you call the ever-more-worthless junk in your wallet. Coin - as in the money that existed at the time, primarily gold coins from Spain.The Framers had seen first hand the devastating effects of printing fiat money in various states during the Revolution to finance the war. What the heck does this have to do with weights and measures, so much that it's in the very same sentence? Clearly this was related to defining an ounce, or a pound, since differences in the accepted measurement would affect the coin's value. The framers knew the difference between coin and scrip.
Says someone who has researched this topic: The Framers specifically intended that money in the new republic would be based on the use of precious metals, and not on paper currency.
Quote
The U.S. Mint issued a warning this year that the Liberty Dollar violated the Constitution and warned consumers against using them unsuspectingly. ... Guess what. They're correct.
It is bad government. The Liberty Dollar was not legal tender, and NORFED never intended it to be. It was intended to be used as a private medium of exchange, the value of which was to be determined by the parties using it. No different than trading one commodity for another, and what better commodity than precious metal, universally accepted for thousands of years? NORFED paper was 100% backed by it. If two individuals choose to settle their debts in such a manner, tell me why government should have any say in it. This is the essence of capitalism, and interfering with it is bad government. Big, too. Big and bad. As for who's correct, that's for a court to decide.
Quote
Okay, you're embarassing yourself there with your ignorance. You never studied this stuff, I take it.
I kneel at your foot, O enlightened one. Surely I'm not worthy to post in your almighty presence. BTW the proper spelling is embarrassed.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 16, 2007, 05:02:08 PM
last time i checked its a crime to use someones likeness to promote without their permission doesn't sound like the lunatic fringe scam artists care much though. not very libertarian of them.
and somebody get the new guy some help with sentence stucture and vocabulary its bad when i can see how hes wrong and he can't vis a vis the proper form of the root word embarass
Post by: Manedwolf on November 16, 2007, 05:07:34 PM
Take Macroeconomics 101. Then come back and play. Mmkay?
NORFED?
Ah, obsessive Paulians, always good for a chuckle... They're the comic relief of the Republican primary process, when they're not being annoying or getting themselves arrested while wearing "V" masks and yelling that they're being oppressed...
Post by: v35 on November 16, 2007, 05:14:25 PM
and somebody get the new guy some help with sentence stucture and vocabulary its bad when i can see how hes wrong and he can't vis a vis the proper form of the root word embarass
*sigh* its embarrassHelp like yours will leave me completely illiterate; thanks anyway!
Post by: atomd on November 16, 2007, 05:21:32 PM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 16, 2007, 05:23:30 PM
Post by: yesitsloaded on November 16, 2007, 05:40:39 PM
Help Help I'm being oppressed
Post by: Hawkmoon on November 16, 2007, 05:45:12 PM
The idea is sound, the actual liberty dollar company may not be. Barter is fine. Barter involving silver is fine. Pretending that it is currency is not.
DING!Go to the head of the class.
Post by: Hawkmoon on November 16, 2007, 05:53:31 PM
It is bad government. The Liberty Dollar was not legal tender, and NORFED never intended it to be. It was intended to be used as a private medium of exchange, the value of which was to be determined by the parties using it. No different than trading one commodity for another, and what better commodity than precious metal, universally accepted for thousands of years? NORFED paper was 100% backed by it. If two individuals choose to settle their debts in such a manner, tell me why government should have any say in it. This is the essence of capitalism, and interfering with it is bad government. Big, too. Big and bad. As for who's correct, that's for a court to decide.
NORFED knows full well that their Liberty Dollars are not legal tender, but if you read through their web site they clearly make a concerted effort to disguise the fact. And the part of their literature reproduced above, about how to "offer" the stuff as payment, makes it painfully obvious that the intent is to try to trick some not-so-bright sales drone into accepting the stuff thinking it's legal tender. They do NOT advise users to be forthright in offering the stuff and say "Nope, it's not issued by the government, but the silver in it is worth $__. Will you take it or would you rather have money?" No, they advise the user to engage in deceptive practices and deceptive language.
It's a scam, is what it is. And as to the guy "offering" to be arrested? That's another act. I don't think he has to "offer" -- I'd wager he's virtaully guaranteed to be arrested right quick. Now, when it goes down, he'll tell all his faithful minions that the government "accepted his offer to arrest him."
What a wack job.
Post by: yesitsloaded on November 16, 2007, 06:16:37 PM
Post by: Warren on November 16, 2007, 06:17:50 PM
They want the power that comes from issuing money and they refuse to share.
There were over 8000+ private issuers of coinage, tokens, bingles, scrip, and IOUs. Primarily in small denominations in order to make change or to advertise a business or to extol a particular candidate or issue of the day.
In addition there were private mints that for a fee would take your raw metal and make it into a coin.
The country did fine.
If we were to end the Fed monopoly of issuing currency we would do just as fine.
There would be issues to overcome as regards the person to person or business transfer of metal and verifying the value, but these are not unsolvable.
Post by: Euclidean on November 16, 2007, 08:37:40 PM
If people want to trade the Silly Dollars for toasters and Glocks, where's the harm? I don't see it.
Post by: yesitsloaded on November 16, 2007, 09:17:33 PM
Post by: Euclidean on November 16, 2007, 09:25:27 PM
Post by: Kaylee on November 16, 2007, 10:14:33 PM
Quote
Quote
The U.S. Mint issued a warning this year that the Liberty Dollar violated the Constitution and warned consumers against using them unsuspectingly.
Guess what. They're correct. Oh, they're absolutely correct.
I'd just like to see them do the same thing to Congress.
Post by: WeedWhacker on November 17, 2007, 02:55:05 AM
I think the issue at hand is whether or not the NORFED folks were trying to pass Liberty Dollars off as real currency (federal reserve notes) instead of privately made and backed silver coins and certificates.
This is the key issue, since the rest of the charges (mail fraud, money laundering) are likely tenuous at best, akin to the excuse the gov't used to shut down and steal e-gold's gold and other assets.
The LD folks have made it quite clear that their products are a PRIVATE currency, and that the only basis for having a dollar figure on the medallions is as a "suggested trade value", which fluctuates over time because the value of the much more common fiat Federal Reserve Notes varies drastically (down 97% since 1913!). Since bad money drives out good money, having a PRIVATE currency with a face value above its melt value encourages the PRIVATE currency to circulate, rather than sit in a sock drawer.
In fact, this is not the first spat between the LD folks and the fed goons - when the US Mint released a "consumer warning" about NORFED some time ago, the LD folks released a statement denouncing the idea that LD products were "legal tender", and also that use of PRIVATE currency is not forbidden by any law. IIRC, NORFED has already preemptively sued the gov't in an attempt to obtain an injuction against further federal agencies making such statements about LDs being "illegal" or otherwise not usable by consenting parties.
This raid comes some months into that preemtive lawsuit, and all LD's stolen assets (gold, silver, etc.) were stolen under "asset forfeiture" laws, laws which are completely and utterly repugnant to the Constitution and completely bypass any pretense of "due process".
Post by: WeedWhacker on November 17, 2007, 02:58:09 AM
Post by: Sergeant Bob on November 17, 2007, 03:04:20 AM
The thing is, what is precisely wrong with the NORFED products? Let's say I print Silly Dollars on pink paper with pictures of clowns and livestock on them. I then profess to you that 1 Silly Dollar is worth 1 ounce of jelly beans if you care to redeem it.
If people want to trade the Silly Dollars for toasters and Glocks, where's the harm? I don't see it.
If people want to trade the Silly Dollars for toasters and Glocks, where's the harm? I don't see it.
Because then, the government doesn't get their cut. AND, why would anyone trade perfectly good jelly beans for a Glock?
Post by: The Viking on November 17, 2007, 03:34:38 AM
The thing is, what is precisely wrong with the NORFED products? Let's say I print Silly Dollars on pink paper with pictures of clowns and livestock on them. I then profess to you that 1 Silly Dollar is worth 1 ounce of jelly beans if you care to redeem it.
If people want to trade the Silly Dollars for toasters and Glocks, where's the harm? I don't see it.
If people want to trade the Silly Dollars for toasters and Glocks, where's the harm? I don't see it.
Because then, the government doesn't get their cut. AND, why would anyone trade perfectly good jelly beans for a Glock?
Post by: Manedwolf on November 17, 2007, 07:38:40 AM
Quote
The thing is, what is precisely wrong with the NORFED products? Let's say I print Silly Dollars on pink paper with pictures of clowns and livestock on them. I then profess to you that 1 Silly Dollar is worth 1 ounce of jelly beans if you care to redeem it.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Ever notice that when you get a coin from an amusement park or the like, it says, as part of the stamping, "non-negotiable", "not legal tender", or "no monetary value"? That's the law.
If these said "20 credits", "20 peanuts", or "20 illuminati favors", they'd be fine. But they didn't.
They say USA and "twenty dollars", with no disclaimer. Thus, way over the line into illegality as a false currency attempted to be passed off as legal tender. The evidence is right there, both the "twenty dollars" and US Dollar sign $ coupled with USA. And no statement that it is not a currency with monetary value. This is a clear-cut case when it hits the court, the guy's not going to get anything back. He was a fool who was either ignorant of the law or perhaps chose to ignore it.
Post by: yesitsloaded on November 17, 2007, 01:13:12 PM
Post by: Brad Johnson on November 17, 2007, 01:36:43 PM
and somebody get the new guy some help with sentence stucture and vocabulary its bad when i can see how hes wrong and he can't vis a vis the proper form of the root word embarass
*sigh* its embarrass
Help like yours will leave me completely illiterate; thanks anyway!
Hey v35...
You realize that your smarmy retort contains both a misspelled word and a blatant grammar error, right?
*snicker*
Brad
Post by: WeedWhacker on November 17, 2007, 05:14:36 PM
Quote from: ManedWolf
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Quite a misquoted phrase, to infer that all laws are so obvious as to be known by everyone, which is blatantly false.
That phrase applies only to natural law, such as murder, theft, assault, and the like.
Post by: Manedwolf on November 17, 2007, 06:21:07 PM
Quote from: ManedWolf
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Quite a misquoted phrase, to infer that all laws are so obvious as to be known by everyone, which is blatantly false.
That phrase applies only to natural law, such as murder, theft, assault, and the like.
Um...
If you mint and distribute currency without knowing the applicable laws, sorry, but you're a moron.
Post by: Euclidean on November 17, 2007, 09:00:53 PM
For NORFED to have committed a crime, there has to be specific proof they were clearly intending passing Liberty Dollars as US currency. The burden of proof is on the state to prove guilty not NORFED to prove they were doing nothing wrong. Your argument against them is like saying that because my Glock doesn't say "Don't murder people with this handgun" on it somewhere, Glock's responsible for any murders committed with the handgun.
Quite frankly I suspect what the Mint is doing here is motivated by politics and not any legal issue of substance. Yeah a good disclaimer would have been a great CYA policy on NORFED's part, which is why they're in this mess, but NORFED has substantial evidence they haven't done the very thing they're accused of.
I don't think Liberty Dollars really accomplish the goals they purport to, but I don't see what's illegal about them. What I see here is "We don't agree with your politics so we're going to take you out".
Oh, and while they're at it apparently they get to take some precious metals. Gee, how convenient. Eliminating a political enemy and taking the spoils all at once is something only the government could ever hope to get away with.
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 18, 2007, 03:36:44 PM
I was divided on the subject until I saw the coin. It has the dollar sign on it. It is an open-and-shut case. These jokers will spend a long time in federal prison, having accomplished nothing other than subsidize the state with the confiscated precious metals.
Along more general lines, if these guys truly believe the country is gone to hell, they should pick up rifles and march on Washington. But it is easier and safer to play with coins and be coy about it. Bleh. They turn my stomach.
Post by: Euclidean on November 18, 2007, 04:40:51 PM
Those "technicalities" like having to prove the crime beyond a reasonable doubt is the cornerstone of our justice system. Look I get mad too when some scumbag walks because some cop didn't record a key piece of evidence properly, but we can't be selective and only excuse parties we're sympathetic too. The rules have to apply the same to everybody.
So what if it has the dollar sign on it? Does the US government have exclusive rights to the dollar sign? Here try this. Highlight this next line of text and print it out.
$5 five dollars USA In God We Trust
That's exactly what NORFED is doing. If you just printed that line of text, you have committed the same "crime" they have. They're making silly little tokens and coupons with words like that written on them. Sure they look cooler than that little slip of paper and they have pictures and whatnot on them too, but just as I'm not responsible for someone being dumb enough to accept or try to use that slip of paper you just made as five dollar FRN, neither are they responsible for such a use of their product either.
Similarly, if someone consents to treat that slip of paper as being worth the same as five dollar FRN, that's between you and them. It's nothing more than barter.
For a crime to have occurred here the US Government needs to prove that the allegation is true beyond the shadow of a doubt. I personally doubt that NORFED did any such thing. What I do see here is "Well I don't like Ron Paul and I don't like the political opinions of these NORFED people so let's get 'em."
Along more general lines, if these guys truly believe the country is gone to hell, they should pick up rifles and march on Washington. But it is easier and safer to play with coins and be coy about it. Bleh. They turn my stomach.
It must be nice to not have a family or any competing moral obligations in your life such that you can immediately resort to shooting people as your first course of action.
Post by: Manedwolf on November 18, 2007, 04:52:26 PM
So what if it has the dollar sign on it? Does the US government have exclusive rights to the dollar sign?
YES, IN FACT, THEY DO.
Will you people PLEASE read the goddamned laws, instead of just babbling that they don't exist, because you never read them?
In fact, early in the 20th century, this guy would have been already locked up for life for counterfeiting. Earlier than that, past century, he might have been already dropped on a rope. The laws are that old!
Educate yourself before opening your mouth! Jesus christ!
Post by: Hawkmoon on November 18, 2007, 07:38:39 PM
For NORFED to have committed a crime, there has to be specific proof they were clearly intending passing Liberty Dollars as US currency. The burden of proof is on the state to prove guilty not NORFED to prove they were doing nothing wrong.
But that's exactly what they are doing, but they're being sneaky about it. Did you read the "instructions" on how to use liberty dollars?
Quote
4. Simply offer The Liberty Dollar with the confidence that it will be accepted. After all, why wouldn't it? When you offer the American Express Card, if it is not accepted, they tell you. Likewise, if the store does not accept Liberty Dollars, the cashier will tell you and you can simply pay another way.
5. "Do the Drop!" The best way to introduce the Liberty Dollar is to drop the Silver Liberty in someone's hand. Do not hand it to the cashier, Drop it! Hold a one-ounce Silver Liberty a couple inches above the outreached palm and drop it so it lands flat in the person's palm.
6. Now the hardest part - don't say anything! Just wait. Let the person marvel at its beauty, weight, and discover it says TWENTY DOLLARS. When asked "Is it real?" Answer: "Yes, one ounce of silver PRIVATE currency valued at 20 dollars." Do not rush. Just stand there and wait, patiently. No need to smile. Just wait.
7. After 30 seconds, say, "I have US government legal tender money too [show the cashier FRN cash], but would prefer to pay with silver." If the cashier hands it back immediately, you may ask her to show the currency to the manager, or just pay some other way.
8. Never use a Silver Liberty alone unless the sale is greater than $10 and less than $20. If the total is greater than $20, include the Silver Libertys with FRNs.
5. "Do the Drop!" The best way to introduce the Liberty Dollar is to drop the Silver Liberty in someone's hand. Do not hand it to the cashier, Drop it! Hold a one-ounce Silver Liberty a couple inches above the outreached palm and drop it so it lands flat in the person's palm.
6. Now the hardest part - don't say anything! Just wait. Let the person marvel at its beauty, weight, and discover it says TWENTY DOLLARS. When asked "Is it real?" Answer: "Yes, one ounce of silver PRIVATE currency valued at 20 dollars." Do not rush. Just stand there and wait, patiently. No need to smile. Just wait.
7. After 30 seconds, say, "I have US government legal tender money too [show the cashier FRN cash], but would prefer to pay with silver." If the cashier hands it back immediately, you may ask her to show the currency to the manager, or just pay some other way.
8. Never use a Silver Liberty alone unless the sale is greater than $10 and less than $20. If the total is greater than $20, include the Silver Libertys with FRNs.
Did you see another, recent thread discussing a young man who was (IIRC) arrested for trying to pass libery dollars off as currency? Apparently he forgot to memorize the script, or else the clerk didn't hear the cue, because somewhere in that transaction the 'Is it real?" scene didn't get played out.
Are you so naive that you don't believe this whole "drop it in their hand" bit is geared to taking advantage of the functional illiterates behind 95 percent of the cash registers in the country today? I mean, come on -- the cash registers HAVE to calculate the change, because the people behind them sure can't. Just today, I had a charge of $7.23. I handed the clerk a $10 bill, two dimes and three pennies. She opened up the drawer and started scooping up coins, then she looked at the display and saw that my change came to exactly $3.00. All movement, all activity, stopped. She must have stared at it for at least a full minute, and it was obvious that she absolutely, positively had no idea how I managed to make it come out to an even number of dollars for change.
Do you honestly think if you handed this mental giant a shiny silver coin that says "$20" on it that she would even stop to ask "Is it real"? I don't think so -- and I believe that's exactly what the liberty dollar folks are counting on.
Post by: yesitsloaded on November 18, 2007, 08:18:11 PM
Post by: Manedwolf on November 18, 2007, 08:20:13 PM
But is it their fault that those people are dumb as a brick? It isn't counterfeit US money.
Yes, it is.
If you make a bad turn and run into a police car because you don't know how to drive, whose fault is it?
Post by: yesitsloaded on November 18, 2007, 08:39:29 PM
Post by: Manedwolf on November 18, 2007, 08:48:10 PM
Post by: Warren on November 18, 2007, 08:55:58 PM
No, you killed the metaphor.
But he did not kill the simile........
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 18, 2007, 10:34:22 PM
It must be nice to not have a family or any competing moral obligations in your life such that you can immediately resort to shooting people as your first course of action.
Right. Because all the revolutionaries throughout world history never had any family or obligations.
I'll try to pretend you never said that.
Post by: LAK on November 18, 2007, 11:28:55 PM
http://www.libertydollar.org/ld/legal/raidday1.htm
Quote
FBI Raids Liberty Dollar
[see links on webpage]
Dear Liberty Dollar Supporters:
I sincerely regret to inform you that about 8:00 this morning a dozen FBI and
Secret Service agents raided the Liberty Dollar office in Evansville.
For approximately six hours they took all the gold, all the silver, all the
platinum and almost two tons of Ron Paul Dollars that where just delivered last
Friday. They also took all the files, all the computers and froze our bank
accounts.
We have no money. We have no products. We have no records to even know what was
ordered or what you are owed. We have nothing but the will to push forward and
overcome this massive assault on our liberty and our right to have real money as
defined by the US Constitution. We should not to be defrauded by the fake
government money.
But to make matters worse, all the gold and silver that backs up the paper
certificates and digital currency held in the vault at Sunshine Mint has also
been confiscated. Even the dies for mint the Gold and Silver Libertys have been
taken.
This in spite of the fact that Edmond C. Moy, the Director of the Mint,
acknowledged in a letter to a US Senator that the paper certificates did not
violate Section 486 and were not illegal. But the FBI and Services took all the
paper currency too.
The possibility of such action was the reason the Liberty Dollar was designed so
that the vast majority of the money was in specie form and in the peoples
hands. Of the $20 million Liberty Dollars, only about a million is in paper or
digital form.
I regret that if you are due an order. It may be some time until it will be
filled... if ever... it now all depends on our actions.
Everyone who has an unfulfilled order or has digital or paper currency should
band together for a class action suit and demand redemption. We cannot allow the
government to steal our money! Please dont let this happen!!! Many of you read
the articles quoting the government and Federal Reserve officials that the
Liberty Dollar was legal. You did nothing wrong. You are legally entitled to
your property. Let us use this terrible act to band together and further our
goal to return America to a value based currency.
Please forward this important Alert... so everyone who possess or use the
Liberty Dollar is aware of the situation.
Please click HERE to sign
up for the class action lawsuit and get your property back!
If the above link does not work you can access the page by copying the following
into your web browser. http://www.libertydollar.org/classaction/index.php
Thanks again for your support at this darkest time as the damn government and
their dollar sinks to a new low.
Bernard von NotHaus
Monetary Architect
[see links on webpage]
Dear Liberty Dollar Supporters:
I sincerely regret to inform you that about 8:00 this morning a dozen FBI and
Secret Service agents raided the Liberty Dollar office in Evansville.
For approximately six hours they took all the gold, all the silver, all the
platinum and almost two tons of Ron Paul Dollars that where just delivered last
Friday. They also took all the files, all the computers and froze our bank
accounts.
We have no money. We have no products. We have no records to even know what was
ordered or what you are owed. We have nothing but the will to push forward and
overcome this massive assault on our liberty and our right to have real money as
defined by the US Constitution. We should not to be defrauded by the fake
government money.
But to make matters worse, all the gold and silver that backs up the paper
certificates and digital currency held in the vault at Sunshine Mint has also
been confiscated. Even the dies for mint the Gold and Silver Libertys have been
taken.
This in spite of the fact that Edmond C. Moy, the Director of the Mint,
acknowledged in a letter to a US Senator that the paper certificates did not
violate Section 486 and were not illegal. But the FBI and Services took all the
paper currency too.
The possibility of such action was the reason the Liberty Dollar was designed so
that the vast majority of the money was in specie form and in the peoples
hands. Of the $20 million Liberty Dollars, only about a million is in paper or
digital form.
I regret that if you are due an order. It may be some time until it will be
filled... if ever... it now all depends on our actions.
Everyone who has an unfulfilled order or has digital or paper currency should
band together for a class action suit and demand redemption. We cannot allow the
government to steal our money! Please dont let this happen!!! Many of you read
the articles quoting the government and Federal Reserve officials that the
Liberty Dollar was legal. You did nothing wrong. You are legally entitled to
your property. Let us use this terrible act to band together and further our
goal to return America to a value based currency.
Please forward this important Alert... so everyone who possess or use the
Liberty Dollar is aware of the situation.
Please click HERE to sign
up for the class action lawsuit and get your property back!
If the above link does not work you can access the page by copying the following
into your web browser. http://www.libertydollar.org/classaction/index.php
Thanks again for your support at this darkest time as the damn government and
their dollar sinks to a new low.
Bernard von NotHaus
Monetary Architect
---------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: WeedWhacker on November 19, 2007, 12:46:24 AM
So what if it has the dollar sign on it? Does the US government have exclusive rights to the dollar sign?
YES, IN FACT, THEY DO.
Will you people PLEASE read the laws, instead of just babbling that they don't exist, because you never read them?
In fact, early in the 20th century, this guy would have been already locked up for life for counterfeiting. Earlier than that, past century, he might have been already dropped on a rope. The laws are that old!
Educate yourself before opening your mouth!
Guess we should expect Disney to be raided any day now, then, since they also apparently use the "$" sign in reference to their private currency...
http://www.perry.com/disney/money/money.html
Either there is no law, or it is being applied unequally. No one has a problem with that?
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 19, 2007, 02:01:05 AM
if you really don't you serve as an example of why the revolution is still born
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 19, 2007, 02:04:53 AM
how much "specie" are you holding? you do put your money where your mouth is.... right?
Post by: K Frame on November 19, 2007, 05:48:39 AM
Post by: HankB on November 19, 2007, 05:54:04 AM
Numerous other countries, from Australia to Zimbabwe, put "Dollar" on their money, too . . . is possession of foreign "Dollars" illegal?
My guess is that where the Liberty Dollar folks really run afoul of the law is by putting "USA" at the bottom of the coin's reverse; THAT implies that it's US currency, and arguing that it's simply a "country of origin" marking probably won't hold water.
So what if it has the dollar sign on it? Does the US government have exclusive rights to the dollar sign?
YES, IN FACT, THEY DO.
Will you people PLEASE read the goddamned laws, instead of just babbling that they don't exist, because you never read them?
Post by: K Frame on November 19, 2007, 05:58:58 AM
The word Disney isn't.
Post by: HankB on November 19, 2007, 07:12:49 AM
The new circulating presidential $1 coins do not include the word "Liberty." "In God We Trust" and "E Pluribus Unum" along with the year minted have been relegated to the edge.
I believe there are only four words required to be on all US currency: United States of America
Post by: K Frame on November 19, 2007, 07:25:35 AM
Yes, I know.
That negates the fact that the word Liberty has been on other US coils since at least 1910 how?
Once again, it's a guess here as to what the rational was, but I could certainly see the use of the word Liberty as being a motivator for the gov't's actions.
Post by: Harold Tuttle on November 19, 2007, 08:10:06 AM
they seem to be hitting a peak this week:
http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?from=R40&_trksid=m37&satitle=liberty+dollar+ron+paul&category0=
Post by: Manedwolf on November 19, 2007, 08:22:09 AM
So what if it has the dollar sign on it? Does the US government have exclusive rights to the dollar sign?
YES, IN FACT, THEY DO.
Will you people PLEASE read the laws, instead of just babbling that they don't exist, because you never read them?
In fact, early in the 20th century, this guy would have been already locked up for life for counterfeiting. Earlier than that, past century, he might have been already dropped on a rope. The laws are that old!
Educate yourself before opening your mouth!
Guess we should expect Disney to be raided any day now, then, since they also apparently use the "$" sign in reference to their private currency...
http://www.perry.com/disney/money/money.html
Either there is no law, or it is being applied unequally. No one has a problem with that?
Do you see the FINE PRINT on those notes that clearly state that it's not a legal currency?
Do you see a $ sign anywhere on it?
It's gotten to the point that when your sort gets nailed on something after babbling "show me the law, there is no law", when, in fact, there is, and you've just not read it...I just point and laugh.
Your standpoint is utterly ridiculous, and a bizarre mix of fringe anarchism coupled with willful ignorance.
Post by: Harold Tuttle on November 19, 2007, 09:05:54 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on November 19, 2007, 09:10:56 AM
"Twenty Dollars" with nothing in between like silly, fake, ronpaul, etc.. illegal.
Use of $ symbol with a denomination ...illegal.
Lack of disclaimer stating that it is not legal tender...illegal.
This is an open and shut case.
On every technical aspect, it's breaking the law. On intent to deceive and defraud, the "instructions" are a rope the guy wove himself.
Post by: brer on November 19, 2007, 09:38:25 AM
If that is illegal, with the exception of the dollar sign, so are the vast majority of the ingots I own.
Thus we are left with only the dollar sign making it illegal.
At no point in the image does it claim to be legal tender, it has a value written on it just like most items in a supermarket do.
Specifically it does show who created it. Nor does the entity that created it claim to be the US mint or claim the item to be legal tender.
This is not as open or shut as you may think.
Me personally, I like silver eagles. While I do not think the liberty dollars rise to the level of a scam, I believe they have been overpriced historically.
Post by: Len Budney on November 19, 2007, 10:02:09 AM
If that is illegal, with the exception of the dollar sign, so are the vast majority of the ingots I own.
If you include the dollar sign, price tags are also illegal, as are various kinds of tokens all over the country. Maned needs to give back his law degree; they're at least arguably on the right side of the law. The only substantive question is whether users of the LDs are guilty of passing them as legal tender, which is a much fuzzier issue.
I do think that many of them probably are, simply because I disbelieve their claims to educate a cashier or waitress concerning barter tokens in the time it takes to complete a transaction. Call me elitist, but I think the average change-giver is lucky to remember their own phone number, and glazes over completely when someone starts into his LD pitch. When he finishes, she takes it because it looks like a coin and says $20 on it. She'd take a subway token just as easily, if it had a denomination.
--Len.
Post by: Manedwolf on November 19, 2007, 10:03:37 AM
READ THE LAWS.
Post by: Len Budney on November 19, 2007, 10:10:40 AM
Len, you're making yourself look more foolish and ignorant with every post, sorry.
Your usual level of argumentation is showing: a personal insult and a complete absence of any argument or evidence. Hint: "the laws" would fill tractor-trailer trucks if printed out in full. To count as "evidence," you must be considerably more specific.
--Len.
Post by: Manedwolf on November 19, 2007, 10:13:24 AM
If you're going to do something like mint coins, you sure as hell better know all the applicable laws!
Post by: HankB on November 19, 2007, 10:33:36 AM
Quote
That negates the fact that the word Liberty has been on other US coils since at least 1910 how?
Once again, it's a guess here as to what the rational was, but I could certainly see the use of the word Liberty as being a motivator for the gov't's actions.
"Liberty" is not a requirement or a unique feature of US coins, since legal-tender, circulating coins are being minted without it . . . so I don't see how the use of a word not used on all coinage would be evidence of counterfeiting; I personally think including "USA" is the only potentially deceptive feature of the coin, but then, I won't be the one deciding the outcome of the case.Once again, it's a guess here as to what the rational was, but I could certainly see the use of the word Liberty as being a motivator for the gov't's actions.
Manedwolf, you've repeatedly asserted that the law makes use of the $ sign on private coinage illegal . . . that assertion implies you have personal familiarity with the specifics. If you were to cite the specific sections of the law establishing the government's exclusive right to use of the $ sign, you'd effectively shut down all arguments to the contrary.
(When one person claims "The law doesn't say this" and another person claims "The law DOES say this" . . . it's up to the second person to prove his point; demanding the first person show what the law doesn't say involves requiring someone to prove a negative.)
Post by: yesitsloaded on November 19, 2007, 11:28:53 AM
Post by: Len Budney on November 19, 2007, 11:30:52 AM
Ah, yes, "show me the law", like that Ed Brown idiot.
Do you intend to say something germane sooner or later? Just curious.
Post by: Manedwolf on November 19, 2007, 11:42:55 AM
Why? Because I don't have to. I'm not minting currency or trying to. I know the law exists.
If you doubt the law, babble "show the me the law" and such? Go ahead and mint your own currency without worrying about what the law says. And watch what the federal government does to you. Go ahead! I'll bring popcorn.
Quote
Do you intend to say something germane sooner or later? Just curious.
How about "I can't wait for the primaries to be over, so the conspiracy nut Paulians will get the hell out of my state and go back to their basements and black-helicopter websites."
Post by: HankB on November 19, 2007, 11:50:41 AM
I suspect thread lock is coming . . .
Post by: Len Budney on November 19, 2007, 11:51:13 AM
I'm not going to go quoting the various sections and titles of the Code of Federal Regulations...
That's your prerogative. But if you aren't going to put up, you have to shut up. You can't refuse the burden of proof but still pretend you've proven anything.
--Len.
Post by: Manedwolf on November 19, 2007, 11:54:42 AM
This . . . discussion . . . has about run its course.
I suspect thread lock is coming . . .
I suspect thread lock is coming . . .
I suspect you're right.
As per usual, Paulians are going "LA LA LA there is no law, show me the law, LA LA..."
How can you debate with someone just disbelieving at you?
If you don't believe there's a law, go ahead and break it. I'll stand by and watch.
"That's a minefield."
"Show me where it says that! I don't believe that!" *walks into minefield*
*BOOM!*
"Ooo...nice hangtime."
Post by: Len Budney on November 19, 2007, 11:58:39 AM
How can you debate with someone just disbelieving at you?
Sigh. BY CARRYING THE BURDEN OF PROOF. This isn't rocket science.
There is no law saying that metal tokens must explicitly state that they aren't legal tender; the laws state that such instruments can't claim to be legal tender. They may make a case against the LD people, but it won't be the facile one you're suggesting. Hint: the tokens have existed for years with $ signs and the word "dollar" on them. If that were illegal per se, they'd have been shut down and charged years ago.
As an aside, (1) Ron Paul has nothing to do with Liberty Dollars, even though the LD people obviously support Ron Paul. (2) Many RP supporters, myself included, have nothing to do with LDs. (3) Anyone with half a brain knew that the feds would shut them down sooner or later, including their proponents. You don't muscle onto government turf without eventually facing imprisonment and/or death. To suggest that anyone had any doubts on the score is needless--though consistent with your persistent need to heap ridicule.
--Len.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on November 19, 2007, 12:21:05 PM
Quote
Under 18 U.S.C. ? 486, it is a Federal crime to utter or pass, or attempt to utter or pass, any coins of gold or silver intended for use as current money except as authorized by law. According to the NORFED website, "Liberty merchants" are encouraged to accept NORFED "Liberty Dollar" medallions and offer them as change in sales transactions of merchandise or services. Further, NORFED tells "Liberty associates" that they can earn money by obtaining NORFED "Liberty Dollar" medallions at a discount and then can "spend [them] into circulation." Therefore, NORFEDs "Liberty Dollar" medallions are specifically intended to be used as current money in order to limit reliance on, and to compete with the circulating coinage of the United States. Consequently, prosecutors with the United States Department of Justice have concluded that the use of NORFEDs "Liberty Dollar" medallions violates 18 U.S.C. ? 486.
Quote
TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I--CRIMES
CHAPTER 25--COUNTERFEITING AND FORGERY
? 486. Uttering coins of gold, silver or other metal
Whoever, except as authorized by law, makes or utters or passes, or attempts to utter or pass, any coins of gold or silver or other metal, or alloys of metals, intended for use as current money, whether in the resemblance of coins of the United States or of foreign countries, or of original design, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 709; Pub. L. 103-322, title XXXIII, Sec. 330016(1)(I), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)
PART I--CRIMES
CHAPTER 25--COUNTERFEITING AND FORGERY
? 486. Uttering coins of gold, silver or other metal
Whoever, except as authorized by law, makes or utters or passes, or attempts to utter or pass, any coins of gold or silver or other metal, or alloys of metals, intended for use as current money, whether in the resemblance of coins of the United States or of foreign countries, or of original design, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 709; Pub. L. 103-322, title XXXIII, Sec. 330016(1)(I), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)
Post by: yesitsloaded on November 19, 2007, 12:55:05 PM
Post by: Brad Johnson on November 19, 2007, 01:03:29 PM
I've seen the light er law. So now I guess it becomes a question of whether it was "intended for use as current money" or simply a convenient way to trade silver for other items. Intent is the whole ballgame here. I agree it doesn't look good.
If intended as a convenient way to trade silver, it would have been at the metal content's spot market price. That, or some type of non-recommended market rate set by open trade.
Their recommendation was specifically intended to have the coins be used in lieu of government-minted money (coin or paper). That is, to make them a direct competitor of circulating legal tender. See Sargeant Bob's quote for 18 U.S.C. ? 486 for the rest of the story.
Brad
Post by: yesitsloaded on November 19, 2007, 01:12:51 PM
Quote
As per usual, Paulians are going "LA LA LA there is no law, show me the law, LA LA..."
How can you debate with someone just disbelieving at you?
I changed my opinion when I read the law. I admit it they are pretty much screwed at this point. You can still make fun of Len until he repents though How can you debate with someone just disbelieving at you?
Post by: Len Budney on November 19, 2007, 02:46:30 PM
Good stuff. Maned should learn by your example.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 486, it is a Federal crime to utter or pass, or attempt to utter or pass, any coins of gold or silver intended for use as current money...
NORFED will attempt the defense that they weren't issuing their "rounds" as "current money." To do so, they'll have to distinguish barter using silver from "currency." That's a slender defense under the best of circumstances, but in the American jury system it's practically guaranteed to fail regardless how well they argue it. Like the cashiers I mentioned above, their eyes will glaze over, and when time comes to vote they'll say, "Um, looks like coins to me!"
--Len.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 19, 2007, 02:52:29 PM
Post by: Len Budney on November 19, 2007, 03:10:47 PM
and its a shame that the scammers further marginalize ron paul gooooo team!
Technically there's nothing wrong with private currency: if both parties agree to use it, that's their business. A government monopoly on the issuance of money is (arguably) constitutional, but it's unjust--and it makes eternal inflation inevitable. If folks don't understand that (and I'm sure most don't) then they need to be educated.
--Len.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 19, 2007, 03:38:37 PM
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 19, 2007, 08:06:27 PM
Technically there's nothing wrong with private currency: if both parties agree to use it, that's their business.
It has already been established that these guys did intend to defraud. So, the "agreement" would not have been in good faith.
Quote
A government monopoly on the issuance of money is (arguably) constitutional, but it's unjust--and it makes eternal inflation inevitable.
What is wrong with steady, controlled inflation?
Quote
If folks don't understand that (and I'm sure most don't) then they need to be educated.
You got nothing to be smug about. It only makes you look bad.
Post by: LAK on November 19, 2007, 11:20:34 PM
Quote
Their recommendation was specifically intended to have the coins be used in lieu of government-minted money (coin or paper). That is, to make them a direct competitor of circulating legal tender.
But that is what barter is all about to start with - one way or the other - inevitably.We can say, "in lieu of", "instead of", "rather than", etc etc; regardless, barter is a de facto "direct competitor" if it is used.
------------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: Len Budney on November 20, 2007, 02:46:28 AM
Technically there's nothing wrong with private currency: if both parties agree to use it, that's their business.
It has already been established that these guys did intend to defraud.
Has it now. Where and when was that established?
Quote
Quote
A government monopoly on the issuance of money is (arguably) constitutional, but it's unjust--and it makes eternal inflation inevitable.
What is wrong with steady, controlled inflation?
Plenty of things, but that's a red herring: it's impossible to produce "steady, controlled inflation" in the first place. What we get instead is wild, uncontrolled swings like the '70s and boom-bust cycles like the '30s and the current "sub-prime mortgage" implosion.
If "steady, controlled inflation" were possible to achieve, it would still be theft: it means that savers' money is devalued in a "steady, controlled" fashion as surely as if it were gradually taxed away to nothing.
--Len.
Post by: HankB on November 20, 2007, 03:29:44 AM
The Ron Paul liberty dollars are marked as containing one ounce .999 fine silver; assuming this is true, they have some intrinsic value. (Silver spot price is somewhere around $14 or $15 last time I looked.)
Other than their bullion coins, how much intrinsic value do the circulating coins coming out of the US Mint have?]
WHO is doing the defrauding?
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 20, 2007, 03:38:25 AM
Has it now. Where and when was that established?
Other posters covered that several times already. For some reason, you obstinately ignore it. But, that does not make it cease to exist.
Quote
Plenty of things, but that's a red herring: it's impossible to produce "steady, controlled inflation" in the first place. What we get instead is wild, uncontrolled swings like the '70s and boom-bust cycles like the '30s and the current "sub-prime mortgage" implosion.
I am afraid the above statements betray substantial ignorance of economics. The money supply has to keep up with the expansion of the economy. Headless already explained this in another thread. Roughly speaking, the Great Depression was deflationary because production greatly outpaced money supply. An opposite example is the huge inflation the Europe experienced in the 1500 and 1600s as the Spaniards brought so much silver from the New World that money (which was mostly silver at the time) lost value with respect to the production of the period. Incidentally, that is a good historical example of why there is nothing magical about a silver/gold standard and how it is susceptible to money supply problems as well.
Quote
If "steady, controlled inflation" were possible to achieve, it would still be theft: it means that savers' money is devalued in a "steady, controlled" fashion as surely as if it were gradually taxed away to nothing.
A controlled inflation is what we have had since the foundation of the federal reserve. How well controlled is another matter. It is not always perfect and there are stresses to the system from internal and external sources, but generally and most of the time, the fed keep a tight leash on the economy through interest rates and money supply.
As regards the saver's devaluation, welcome to the real world. You cannot just put money in a pot and forget about it. You have to invest in something. If you do not know how and do not wish to learn, give it to somebody else to manage. If you are willing to take a bit of risk, you can configure your portfolio with more equity and consistently beat the inflation over the long term and make pretty money in the process. If you are very risk-averse, configure the portfolio to money-markets, which essentially keep with the inflation. Even something as simple and dumb as sticking the money in a savings account will allow you to offset a lot of the inflation if not all. That's the magic of interest rates.
Now if an individual saver feels he cannot be bothered with any of the options above and just sticks paper money under his mattress, that's his business. In a free country, people are free to be stupid and pay for it.
Finally, if you are so worried about inflation but do not want to invest, buy ingots and hold them. But even that is no guarantee to stability or value preservation. What if tomorrow Chile discovers a huge new silver mine or South Africa discovers a huge new gold mine? The value of your ingots will plummet, while the paper money will not be affected nearly as much.
The bottom line is that in economics, there are no guarantees. Supply and demand are the general rule, and risk is inherent. Return to the gold standard is an ignorant, impractical idea. People support it not because they understand modern economics but because they think that will somehow curb gov spending. Except, throughout history, even when money was precious metal, govs have run deficits in one way or another, generally with little input from the governed. The whole idea is preposterous.
Post by: Len Budney on November 20, 2007, 03:49:29 AM
Has it now. Where and when was that established?
Other posters covered that several times already. For some reason, you obstinately ignore it. But, that does not make it cease to exist.
In which post number was "intent to defraud" proven?
Quote
Quote
Plenty of things, but that's a red herring: it's impossible to produce "steady, controlled inflation" in the first place. What we get instead is wild, uncontrolled swings like the '70s and boom-bust cycles like the '30s and the current "sub-prime mortgage" implosion.
I am afraid the above statements betray substantial ignorance of economics. The money supply has to keep up with the expansion of the economy.
I am afraid the above statements betray substantial ignorance of economics. In an expanding economy with a stable currency, prices simply fall.
Quote
Roughly speaking, the Great Depression was deflationary because production greatly outpaced money supply.
Accurately speaking, the Great Depression was a massive correction of malinvestment through the 1920s caused by the Fed's artificial lowering of interest rates. Attempts to inflate the economy out of the depression prolonged the depression, though your remarks prove that Keynes and the forces of ignorance won the propaganda war: they blame Hoover for failing to inflate enough.
Quote
Quote
If "steady, controlled inflation" were possible to achieve, it would still be theft: it means that savers' money is devalued in a "steady, controlled" fashion as surely as if it were gradually taxed away to nothing.
As regards the saver's devaluation, welcome to the real world.
In the real world, we rob people. Get used to it.
That you're factually wrong is obvious: the folks who put gold in their mattresses, instead of FRNs, are virtually unaffected by inflation. "Virtually" because gold prices do fluctuate in terms of FRNs, but the purchasing power is very stable.
That you're morally wrong is doubly obvious. If I point out that rape is routinely practiced in Pakistan, a Sindhi from Karachi might say, "As regards rape, welcome to the real world." He'd be (rightly!) shouted down by folks such as frequent this forum. So why the hell does calling robbery "the real world" justify it?
--Len.
Post by: K Frame on November 20, 2007, 05:01:13 AM
We've already established that.
We've also established the fact that I'm GUESSING what the government's motivation is. Is that so hard to comprehend?
Post by: Brad Johnson on November 20, 2007, 06:54:41 AM
Brad Johnson
We can say, "in lieu of", "instead of", "rather than", etc etc; regardless, barter is a de facto "direct competitor" if it is used.
Quote
Their recommendation was specifically intended to have the coins be used in lieu of government-minted money (coin or paper). That is, to make them a direct competitor of circulating legal tender.
But that is what barter is all about to start with - one way or the other - inevitably.We can say, "in lieu of", "instead of", "rather than", etc etc; regardless, barter is a de facto "direct competitor" if it is used.
It is barter if you have an established free market value for a product, and with both parties' knowledge of that value. Barter deals with products of known or commonly accepted value.
In the case of the coins they were "suggesting" you use them as a substitue for common currency, and that you "encourage" the recipient (who has no foreknowledge of the coin, it's metal content, or any intrinsic value) to accept it at a worth in excess of the metal content's market value. That's not bartering. That's deceiving someone intentionally just to "get back at the government." And it's wrong, both morally and legally.
Brad
Post by: Len Budney on November 20, 2007, 07:12:32 AM
It is barter if you have an established free market value for a product, and with both parties' knowledge of that value. Barter deals with products of known or commonly accepted value.
Nonsense. Value is subjectively established between the parties conducting the transaction. I can barter for a back-rub, a ham sandwich or a pretty rock.
The subjectivity of value applies to currency as well; what fools you is that numbers are involved. Whether your "three dollars" is worth more or less than my "gallon of milk" is between you and me to sort out. When you say that "is" the value of a gallon of milk, you are simply expressing an awareness that (1) I won't accept less than $3, and (2) plenty of other people out there are willing to part with $3 for it. Since you are in competition with those other buyers, you have no choice but to pay the $3.
The practice of valuing things in dollars is convenient, because a common unit of account facilitates deciding between alternatives. But those dollar prices are fixed by a process of bargaining amongst agents each of whose valuations is purely subjective.
--Len.
Post by: Brad Johnson on November 20, 2007, 07:28:06 AM
Quote
Nonsense. Value is subjectively established between the parties conducting the transaction. I can barter for a back-rub, a ham sandwich or a pretty rock.
By definition "free market value" is completely subjective. That's the "free" part. Once everyone begins to trade a particular product or service on that subjective free market a particular value becomes established, be it in dollars, gold, chickens, labor, whatever. Now you have an established free market value that people can agree to when bartering unlike goods or services.
Boy, you really have a burr under your saddle about this coin thing. Why? These people were producing a product that was intended to be easily confused with common currency, and trying to push a product value in excess of the actual content value (a content value established on the "subjective" free market, by the way). They were trying ... no, that's not corecct ... they were strongly suggesting you insist an unknowing third party accept that product at its inflated value and in lieu of common and familiar paper and coin money, thus defrauding that party of the difference in insisted value and actual content value. Doing that is called Theft. Suggesting that is called Conspiracy to Defraud. Defending that is called Stupid.
Brad
Post by: Len Budney on November 20, 2007, 07:35:03 AM
Quote
Nonsense. Value is subjectively established between the parties conducting the transaction. I can barter for a back-rub, a ham sandwich or a pretty rock.
By definition "free market value" is completely subjective. That's the "free" part. Once everyone begins to trade a particular product or service on that subjective free market a particular value becomes established...
Still nonsense. Prices fluctuate constantly.
Quote
Boy, you really have a burr under your saddle about this coin thing. Why? These people were producing a product that was intended to be easily confused with common currency...
I believe they were doing exactly that, and I believe that it constitutes fraud. On the other hand, nailing them for fraud shouldn't involve promulgating economic ignorance or disparaging sound currency. Legitimate competition from a stable currency would be a godsend, and if such a thing arose the feds would shut that down just as quick as NORFED.
--Len.
Post by: Brad Johnson on November 20, 2007, 07:53:45 AM
Quote
Still nonsense. Prices fluctuate constantly.
That's right, they do. But that fluctuation goes up or down based on peoples' confidence of the current established market value. More confidence, it goes up from that value. Less confidence and it goes down.
To claim that product value fluctuates completely independent of current accepted value is silly. It completely ignores human nature and our innate desire to perceive, promote, or establish an intrinsic worth for our "stuff." The only things that fluctuate independent of a current or accepted value are those things so unique that there is no current value. In those casesd we, as is our nature, try to make an association with some other item in order to at least establish a relational value.
Quote
Legitimate competition from a stable currency would be a godsend,
We already have that. It's called "commodities" and the value is established in free trading. There's no decree in Heaven or on Earth says that "currency" must be in the form of a coin, so why insist on having one? Carry around a pocket full of gold and silver bullion. 10 oz bars for the big stuff, 1 oz bar for small. Check the market price each morning and carry the list with you as proof of the intrinsic value of the metal content. You can use them all day long, legally and without fear of the fed nailing you for it, just as long as you are getting fair market value for them.
Brad
Post by: Len Budney on November 20, 2007, 08:05:44 AM
Quote
Still nonsense. Prices fluctuate constantly.
That's right, they do. But that fluctuation goes up or down based on peoples' confidence of the current established market value. More confidence, it goes up from that value. Less confidence and it goes down.
No. It fluctuates based on the same subjective valuations that established the price in the first place.
Quote
To claim that product value fluctuates completely independent of current accepted value is silly.
"Currently accepted value" is a meaningless term. What's a BMW worth? $50K? Not to me. To me it's worth about $10K, because I won't pay any more than that for one. What you call the "value" of a BMW is nothing more than the observation that the marginal purchaser (who isn't me!) is willing to pay $50K for one. Any number of things can change their minds, and in that case what you call the "value" will change.
You're reiterating the crisis of classical economics: the diamond/water paradox. Water is worth so much less than diamonds that you'd need a truckload to buy an engagement ring. But in the desert, a man would trade a sack of diamonds for a single drink of water. The only solution to the riddle is Menger's, which ushered in the modern science of economics: the realization that "value" has nothing to do with the item in question, and everything to do with the state of mind of the buyers at the time of the transaction.
--Len.
Post by: Brad Johnson on November 20, 2007, 08:41:13 AM
Just because you place a particular value on something doesn't mean that everyone does. The market is a summary, a generalization. It is a Confidence Gauge of the buying/selling public. You may not put $50k on a BMW, but obviously there are people out there who will or the price would be different.
I've figured you out, Len. You're an old-fashioned horse trader. You're that guy who will offer $80k for a house because "it ain't worth any more than that" then get all kinds of mad because your offer wasn't graciously accepted. Never mind that it's exactly like every other house in the neighborhood and they've been selling all year for $100k. You are thoroughly convinced that everyone in the world except you has a warped idea of what things should be worth, and that your idea of value trumps all. You spend your days wondering what the heck is wrong with everyone else and why on earth would they pay/ask that kind of price for something. I have some bad news. They aren't the ones out of the loop.
The economic world has progressed in the last century. Competition, consumer information, and product availability have gone a bit beyond "here's your product and the price is $x if you want it." Short of having something so unique that it creates its own market, you are dealing with a force greater than You.
Market strength and vitality is determined by consumer confidence in general economic health. Within that market, consumers create their own perceived value for products and services. Those change over time based on consumer confidence in that product/service value, as well as confidence in the economy in general. You can choose to live within it, adjusting to changing dynamics and finding ways to make it work to your advantage, or you can stand in the middle of the flow and attempt forcing it to your will. Based on history's example, the latter option is inherently self-defeating.
One person's opinion of worth is a single warm drop of water in a large and very cold ocean. Some people think they can mix the two and they will stay seperate. Then there are those who will throw in their drop, expecting the ocean to warm up and match temperature. The first is an unreasonable expectation. The second is gross naiveté.
Brad
Post by: Len Budney on November 20, 2007, 08:47:23 AM
You are intermixing "Value to You" and "Value in General."
There is no such thing as "value in general." Therefore, there's nothing to "intermix." There's a current price, but it's a crucial error to confuse "price" with "value." NOR is there a current price for every good; that's why auctions are still an important market activity. They establish prices, particularly for one-of-a-kind objects.
Quote
I've figured you out, Len. You're an old-fashioned horse trader. You're that guy who will offer $80k for a house because "it ain't worth any more than that" then get all kinds of mad because your offer wasn't graciously accepted.
Actually, the asking price on my current house was $80K. I offered $52K, and it was graciously accepted. So if I'm a horse trader, I'm not a bad one. I can tell the whole story in a more appropriate thread if anyone's that interested.
But we're talking about economics, not business. Your understanding of economics appears limited to the classical period; a lot has happened since Menger was born.
--Len.
Post by: Brad Johnson on November 20, 2007, 09:05:08 AM
Quote
There is no such thing as "value in general."
If that was the case there would be no economy and no market. To have no general value means, by definition, that everything is worth nothing. It also means that your idea of value is the only one that counts. Walk into Wal-Mart see how far that gets you.
If the majority of consumers have an expectation of worth that is "value in general." It's kind of hard to argue that something right there in front of you doesn't exists. That is, unless you are consider the economy as some kind of existential or philosophical exercise.
I take that back, there IS a time when there is "no such thing as a value in general." Two times, in fact. One is communism, the other socialism. In both cases there is no intrisic value for goods or services. In one you own and equal share of everything, in the other you own zero shares of anything. So, in both cases, there is no market to establish a shared idea of value. Are you suggesting that's what we have here?
Quote
But we're talking about economics, not business. Your understanding of economics appears limited to the classical period; a lot has happened since Menger was born.
Economics is dynamic, driven by consumer confidence and supported by creativity, production, and innovation. It is ever-changing.
Funny you should mention Menger because he happens to be right. The engin of Supply and Demand with human desire as the fuel...
Quote
Menger viewed exchange as the embodiment of the essential desire and search to satisfy individual human needs. It follows that the intersection between human needs and the availability of goods capable of satisfying those needs is at the root of economic activity.
Brad
Post by: Len Budney on November 20, 2007, 09:18:25 AM
Quote
There is no such thing as "value in general."
If that was the case there would be no economy and no market. To have no general value means, by definition, that everything is worth nothing.
STILL nonsense, I'm afraid. For transactions to take place, it only matters that the participants value the goods they exchange. If your statement were correct, a Da Vinci would be impossible to sell because it has no "value in general."
But even more importantly, you resolutely persist in confusing value and price. Many goods have published prices at any given time. But price is not value. Specifically, the dollars in which the prices are denominated themselves do not have fixed value. When you reply, "Duh, sure they do! They're worth a dollar!" you're again confusing price and value. I'm not kidding: you really need to learn about developments in economics since Menger published Principles of Economics in 1871. You're persistently confusing basic economic terms.
--Len.
Post by: Brad Johnson on November 20, 2007, 09:27:02 AM
Quote
If your statement were correct, a Da Vinci would be impossible to sell because it has no "value in general."
Incorrect. Chances are that particular DaVinci has been sold, or at least appraised for insurance purposes, prior to the sale. There is your general value. Besides, I addressed the "so unique there is only one" issue in a prior post.
Quote
But even more importantly, you resolutely persist in confusing value and price. Many goods have published prices at any given time. But price is not value. Specifically, the dollars in which the prices are denominated themselves do not have fixed value.
You are trying to tie it back to the dollar-has-no-value relationship that is your hot button. Guess what, the rest of us don't care. To us a dollar IS a dollar. It spends just like a dollar's worth of any thing else. That, by definition, gives it value to us. Whether or not you feel it has value is irrelevent to everyone but you.
Look, if you hate U.S. Govt coin and paper money so much, don't use it. I will gladly take your gold, silver, rocks, chickens, labor, etc. in exchange for whatever goods of mine you want to purchase. I will then, in turn, take that gold, silver, rocks, chickens, labor, etc. and turn it into dollars that the rest of the world will accept in trade. Everyone goes home happy.
Brad
Post by: Len Budney on November 20, 2007, 09:58:59 AM
You are trying to tie it back to the dollar-has-no-value relationship that is your hot button. Guess what, the rest of us don't care. To us a dollar IS a dollar.
NO! I am not in ANY way talking about inflation, fiat-money-versus-specie-money or anything else!
I'm explaining the fundamental economic law of diminishing marginal utility. If you have $1,000 in your hand, in $1 FRNs, the first $1 is much more valuable than the thousandth $1. If you take money out of the equation altogether, the principle remains: if you have 1,000 apples, the first apple is worth much more than the thousandth apple. Every good has diminishing marginal utility. Therefore an apple is NOT worth an apple; a dollar is NOT worth a dollar; a parakeet is NOT worth a parakeet. Every good in the universe gets its value from the marginal unit, and the marginal unit has a value which constantly changes depending on context.
This is NOT a political discussion. It's a brief summary of the ABCs of economics. Something one must understand before one can discuss the monetary system with any intelligence at all.
--Len.
Post by: Brad Johnson on November 20, 2007, 10:07:54 AM
Quote
if you have 1,000 apples, the first apple is worth much more than the thousandth apple. Every good has diminishing marginal utility. Therefore an apple is NOT worth an apple; a dollar is NOT worth a dollar; a parakeet is NOT worth a parakeet.
In some parallel dimension, maybe.
Brad
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 20, 2007, 10:26:15 AM
lens not here for the hunting
Post by: Len Budney on November 20, 2007, 10:42:59 AM
Quote
if you have 1,000 apples, the first apple is worth much more than the thousandth apple. Every good has diminishing marginal utility. Therefore an apple is NOT worth an apple; a dollar is NOT worth a dollar; a parakeet is NOT worth a parakeet.
In some parallel dimension, maybe.
Sigh. It's clear you've never studied economics. But where did you get the idea that arguing on in profound ignorance of the subject would be a good idea? You just plain don't have any idea what you're talking about. Here: read yourself rich.
--Len.
Post by: MechAg94 on November 20, 2007, 10:43:36 AM
I think you are the one that need to work on your economics. Just my opinion though.
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 20, 2007, 10:48:31 AM
In an expanding economy with a stable currency, prices simply fall.
If the prices fall, money will steadily appreciate, so people that have to borrow money to run their businesses (i.e. most people) will find themselves bankrupt because they will not make enough to meet their pre-negotiated loan payments. Congratulations, you crashed the economy!
Quote
Accurately speaking, the Great Depression was a massive correction of malinvestment through the 1920s caused by the Fed's artificial lowering of interest rates. Attempts to inflate the economy out of the depression prolonged the depression, though your remarks prove that Keynes and the forces of ignorance won the propaganda war: they blame Hoover for failing to inflate enough.
Actually, they did not inflate fast enough. They were afraid of inflation and stuck their heels, then very belatedly started inflating. The problem is once you start the panic, there is no turning back. If they had printed more money, allowed more inflation from the get-go, and raised interest rates simultaneously, the burst would not have been so bad. Incidentally, that we do not have 1929s anymore is to a large extent due to much more competent regulation nowadays, something that you are clearly against. Yet another contradiction in your stance.
Quote
In the real world, we rob people. Get used to it. If I point out that rape
There we go again with the robbing and raping.
I hate to break it to you, but we live in times when the wealth generation rate is at virtually highest known. The number of millionaires minted every year is staggering. Somehow those guys are not robbed or raped. They are smart investors. What separates them from others? They educate themselves about how the economy works and then take reasonable risks, putting their money where their mouth is. If by comparison, others are too lazy or cowardly to do that, but prefer to sleep on a green paper mattress, then that is their free choice and they should be men enough to own up to it. There is no free lunch.
Finally, if you are convinced the buying value of precious metals remains constant, then just buy ingots and sleep on them. No need to move EVERYBODY ELSE to the gold standard then. You will never be rich, but at least you will be secure from FRN inflation. At least, that is until Chile, South Africa, and Siberia open huge new deposits or there is another major war and a Roosevelt reincarnate starts confiscating bullion.
I am not certain what is more amusing - the ridiculousness of your ideas or how smug you are about them.
Post by: Len Budney on November 20, 2007, 11:01:59 AM
Len, I think you are dragging economic concepts into this discussion that serve no purpose.
I think the topic of this thread IS economics. At least insofar as the LDs relate to the monetary system.
--Len.
Post by: Len Budney on November 20, 2007, 11:12:24 AM
In an expanding economy with a stable currency, prices simply fall.
If the prices fall, money will steadily appreciate, so people that have to borrow money to run their businesses (i.e. most people) will find themselves bankrupt...
That would be true if prices fell precipitously. But that's not what happens; prices fall commensurately with increases in productivity and decreases in costs. The prime example is computer hardware. Computers have improved so rapidly that their prices have steadily fallen despite inflation! Yet nobody is greeting this as a tragedy.
Quote
Quote
Accurately speaking, the Great Depression was a massive correction of malinvestment through the 1920s caused by the Fed's artificial lowering of interest rates. Attempts to inflate the economy out of the depression prolonged the depression, though your remarks prove that Keynes and the forces of ignorance won the propaganda war: they blame Hoover for failing to inflate enough.
Actually, they did not inflate fast enough.
Right. You're quoting Keynes exactly. And Keynes was full of baloney.
Quote
Incidentally, that we do not have 1929s anymore is to a large extent due to much more competent regulation nowadays, something that you are clearly against.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Anyway, you're wrong: we've had several bubbles since then. That they haven't been as bad has been mostly pure luck, and partly a result of inflation putting off the day of reckoning. The problem is that inflation can't paper over a correction forever; it only makes the resulting bust worse. We are already at a point where interest rates have very little wiggle-room left, and the only two choices will be to hyper-inflate or to permit the long-overdue correction. Either way, there are rough times ahead.
Quote
Yet another contradiction in your stance.
My stance did not contradict itself; you contradicted it. Even if you weren't wrong (which you are), it would not be a contradiction in my stance, but a contradiction of it. Please try to keep things straight.
Quote
Quote
In the real world, we rob people. Get used to it...
There we go again with the robbing and raping.
You seem to have missed the part about inflation being robbery. Look, you have the world's only $1 in your mattress. I print a second $1 bill and spend it. You now have exactly half your previous purchasing power, and I have whatever I bought with my counterfeit money. I have robbed you. It's really quite simple. Calling it "the real world" doesn't justify anything.
--Len.
Post by: Brad Johnson on November 20, 2007, 11:13:22 AM
Sigh. It's clear you've never studied economics. But where did you get the idea that arguing on in profound ignorance of the subject would be a good idea? You just plain don't have any idea what you're talking about. Here: read yourself rich.
--Len.
--Len.
Ah, Ludwig von Mises, foundation and inspiration for Libertarian monetary policy. Nice guy, insightful, and a very astute observer, but more monetary philosopher than economist. He tried to dissect economics strangely esoteric ways, seemingly never wanting to admit that basic Supply and Demand pretty much had things covered.
As for marginal utility? Sounds great but it's one-sided, heaping the lion's share of what we now refer to as economy-of-scale on the supply side. It also presumes saturation based on static supply and static demand, neither of which happen in reality.
Brad
Post by: Len Budney on November 20, 2007, 11:21:02 AM
Ah, Ludwig von Mises...
Diminishing marginal utility is common to all modern schools of economics, not just the Austrian school. Sneering at one of them in a knowing tone of voice isn't a substitute for actually knowing what you're talking about.
--Len.
Post by: Brad Johnson on November 20, 2007, 11:41:36 AM
Quote
Diminishing marginal utility is common to all modern schools of economics
Common, yes. Useful, maybe, but only as a discussion point. It became outdated when economic modeling went from static to dynamic. There is a more updated model. It's called Economy of Scale.
Brad
Post by: K Frame on November 20, 2007, 02:47:08 PM
My festive holiday mood is quickly evaporating.
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 20, 2007, 03:39:55 PM
That would be true if prices fell precipitously. But that's not what happens; prices fall commensurately with increases in productivity and decreases in costs. The prime example is computer hardware. Computers have improved so rapidly that their prices have steadily fallen despite inflation! Yet nobody is greeting this as a tragedy.
That is not the only way an economy grows; it is not even the predominant way. Besides, it is a bad example, because the price for a computer is about the same, regardless of tech level. In 1998 I bought a Dell, which was one notch under the best available at the time. An equivalent system today (second best level) would be purchased for almost exactly the same dollar amount. The particular new computer is roughly ten times better than the 1998 one, but in all other respects it is a simple replacement economy: one new computer instead of one old computer, both at roughly the same price as new, when inflation is factored in. That is not surprising because the computer business had its largest growth in the 1990s, and now is much tighter. Try to apply your logic, say from 1987 to 1998, and you will arrive at nonsense.
Quote
Right. You're quoting Keynes exactly. And Keynes was full of baloney.
Convince us.
Quote
Anyway, you're wrong: we've had several bubbles since then. That they haven't been as bad has been mostly pure luck, and partly a result of inflation putting off the day of reckoning.
I did not say we have had no bubbles. I said they were not as bad due to better regulation. You seem to agree that regulation helped, yet you still call me wrong.
Quote
My stance did not contradict itself; you contradicted it. Even if you weren't wrong (which you are), it would not be a contradiction in my stance, but a contradiction of it. Please try to keep things straight.
Are you for regulation or not? Do you believe in the function of the federal reserve or not? Do you think gov should control money supply or not? Make up your mind, then let us know.
Quote
You seem to have missed the part about inflation being robbery. Look, you have the world's only $1 in your mattress. I print a second $1 bill and spend it. You now have exactly half your previous purchasing power, and I have whatever I bought with my counterfeit money. I have robbed you. It's really quite simple. Calling it "the real world" doesn't justify anything.
It would be stealing only if the gov promises not to inflate the money supply, then you store your dollar, then they reneg and inflate. Then and only then can you try to make the case for robbery. As far as I know, gov has not promised so. In fact, it would largely cripple the federal reserve and the fed gov if they did make such a promise at any time and stuck with it.
Your line of reasoning in this case reminds of people who think that by owning common stock they somehow are entitled to a piece of brick and mortar of the respective company. Then the company goes bust, the creditors seize the remaining assets, and the wiped out common-holders scratch their heads and whine:"How did this happen to me?" Well, that is what you bought, a piece of paper which grants privileges (e.g. dividends) but can also become worthless. Federal specie is not much different in that there are risks involved. No point to whine about it - nobody put a gun to your head demanding that you buy and hold the stock or the specie. It is that simple.
Post by: Len Budney on November 20, 2007, 05:14:40 PM
Quote
Diminishing marginal utility is common to all modern schools of economics
Common, yes. Useful, maybe, but only as a discussion point. It became outdated when economic modeling went from static to dynamic. There is a more updated model. It's called Economy of Scale.
Sigh. You're pulling stuff from your belly button. Read a book or two on economics. Until then, there's just no point.
--Len.
Post by: Len Budney on November 20, 2007, 05:32:36 PM
That would be true if prices fell precipitously. But that's not what happens; prices fall commensurately with increases in productivity and decreases in costs. The prime example is computer hardware. Computers have improved so rapidly that their prices have steadily fallen despite inflation! Yet nobody is greeting this as a tragedy.
That is not the only way an economy grows; it is not even the predominant way.
Of course there are other factors. But artificial inflation is not one of them. It saps the economy.
Quote
Besides, it is a bad example, because the price for a computer is about the same, regardless of tech level. In 1998 I bought a Dell, which was one notch under the best available at the time. An equivalent system today (second best level) would be purchased for almost exactly the same dollar amount.
A price or $2,000 in today's dollars is only about $1,600 in 1998 dollars. So comparing everything in 1998 dollars, a decent system is about $400 less than it was back then. But however you want to measure it, prices have steadily declined over the last forty years. A TRS-80 back in 1979 would have cost $3K. That's $8,956.69 in today's dollars. My pentium-based Linux system was $3,000 in 1995. That's $3,935.29 in today's dollars. And my Macbook pro was $2,500 last year. That's about $2,585 in today's dollars.
Normalizing for inflation, the price has steadily declined. In nominal terms, the price of a comparably-ranked system has declined very slightly--but the power of that system has grown exponentially over that time according to Moore's law. So pricing storage in dollars/GB, RAM in dollars/MB, CPU in dollars/megaflop, the price has declined steeply over the years despite inflation.
Quote
Quote
Anyway, you're wrong: we've had several bubbles since then. That they haven't been as bad has been mostly pure luck, and partly a result of inflation putting off the day of reckoning.
I did not say we have had no bubbles. I said they were not as bad due to better regulation.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Quote
You seem to agree that regulation helped...
Absolutely not. One can delay the correction by pumping liquidity, but not forever. The effect is to make the correction worse in the end.
Quote
Quote
My stance did not contradict itself; you contradicted it. Even if you weren't wrong (which you are), it would not be a contradiction in my stance, but a contradiction of it. Please try to keep things straight.
Are you for regulation or not? Do you believe in the function of the federal reserve or not?
Do you have to ask? There should be a free market in currency as in anything else. And in particular, we need a sound money precisely so the thieves in DC can't steal it by inflating the dollar, all the while pretending that inflation is some sort of act of God.
Quote
Quote
You seem to have missed the part about inflation being robbery. Look, you have the world's only $1 in your mattress. I print a second $1 bill and spend it. You now have exactly half your previous purchasing power, and I have whatever I bought with my counterfeit money. I have robbed you. It's really quite simple. Calling it "the real world" doesn't justify anything.
It would be stealing only if the gov promises not to inflate the money supply...
Unless I promise not to take your lunch money, it's not stealing.
Quote
Your line of reasoning in this case reminds of people who think that by owning common stock they somehow are entitled to a piece of brick and mortar of the respective company. Then the company goes bust, the creditors seize the remaining assets, and the wiped out common-holders scratch their heads and whine:"How did this happen to me?"
You appear not to have it quite straight. Stockholders are in fact entitled to their share of the firm's assets. However, other obligations have seniority. Bond-holders, for example, are paid first. It simply happens that when a company enters receivership, the senior obligations usually exceed the firm's assets, so junior obligations such as common stock end up with nothing.
In any case, the analogy is meaningless. Government has no right to seize the fruit of my labor (though they do so anyway), and forcing me at gunpoint (through legal tender laws) to use their scrip, which they then inflate out from under me, is simple robbery. It's indirect robbery, which is why they like it so much: it fools most of the people most of the time. The thieving SOB can even throw around slogans like "Whip Inflation Now!" as if inflation were a hurricane that blew in off the gulf.
--Len.
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 20, 2007, 07:54:05 PM
A price or $2,000 in today's dollars is only about $1,600 in 1998 dollars. So comparing everything in 1998 dollars, a decent system is about $400 less than it was back then. But however you want to measure it, prices have steadily declined over the last forty years. A TRS-80 back in 1979 would have cost $3K. That's $8,956.69 in today's dollars. My pentium-based Linux system was $3,000 in 1995. That's $3,935.29 in today's dollars. And my Macbook pro was $2,500 last year. That's about $2,585 in today's dollars.
Normalizing for inflation, the price has steadily declined. In nominal terms, the price of a comparably-ranked system has declined very slightly--but the power of that system has grown exponentially over that time according to Moore's law. So pricing storage in dollars/GB, RAM in dollars/MB, CPU in dollars/megaflop, the price has declined steeply over the years despite inflation.
Normalizing for inflation, the price has steadily declined. In nominal terms, the price of a comparably-ranked system has declined very slightly--but the power of that system has grown exponentially over that time according to Moore's law. So pricing storage in dollars/GB, RAM in dollars/MB, CPU in dollars/megaflop, the price has declined steeply over the years despite inflation.
You missed the central point - most of expansion in the 1990s happened by NUMBER of computers, not unit price. Zeroing inflation would work fine and dandy if the economy is essentially stagnant and the only difference is the tech level of each computer, while the total number of computers in operation remains the same. But the whole point of the argument we are having is that if the economy expands, as measured if imperfectly by the number of computers sold per year, you have to expand the money supply to match the increase in total wealth.
Quote
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Woo, latin, you must be smart then.
Hehehe. Fine, we cannot turn the clock, do an experiment, and see what will happen. Even if we could, people would be crazy to let us try. But, just explain to us what exactly you think would happen if there is no federal reserve, no adjustment to money supply or interest rates. Just totally free market. Will it result in more stability or less? Will it lead to 1929s or not?
Quote
Unless I promise not to take your lunch money, it's not stealing.
Bad analogy. Nobody puts a gun to your head to keep the specie. If you believe the gov is a tuna-sandwich bully that can and will take your tuna sandwich, then get the egg salad. You'd still be wrong, but at least perfectly safe.
Quote
You appear not to have it quite straight. Stockholders are in fact entitled to their share of the firm's assets. However, other obligations have seniority. Bond-holders, for example, are paid first. It simply happens that when a company enters receivership, the senior obligations usually exceed the firm's assets, so junior obligations such as common stock end up with nothing.
Actually, it is a perfect analogy - the instrument people hold in both cases is a bit more complex, conditional, and risky, than they choose to believe. Common shareholders choose to believe they will get something after the creditors and privileged stock sharks are done with the carcass of the company. People that sleep on paper mattresses choose to believe that their paper will not depreciate badly. They are both deluding themselves and taking risks, whether they acknowledge it or not.
Quote
In any case, the analogy is meaningless. Government has no right to seize the fruit of my labor (though they do so anyway), and forcing me at gunpoint (through legal tender laws) to use their scrip, which they then inflate out from under me, is simple robbery.
Nobody forces you to keep US scrip. You can have all your savings in euros, drahmas, pounds, marks, roubles, or whatever else you want. If you don't like money, you can invest in precious metals, diamonds, guns, commemorative plates, even baseball cards and collectibles. Nobody puts a gun to your head telling you to keep greenbacks in a bucket under your bed. I sure don't, and neither should you, if you know what's good for you. Yeah, I use them to buy stuff, and will keep using them so long as gov recognizes them and people take them.
Quote
It's indirect robbery, which is why they like it so much: it fools most of the people most of the time.
The average US family's savings account is less than 5,000 dollars. Most people don't save enough to be affected by inflation to their savings in any meaningful way. Meanwhile the retirement accounts are growing at least as quickly as money-markets, and therefore generally keep up with the inflation. Those who do have larger savings, generally are also savvy enough to invest in equity, real estate, their own businesses, etc. Thus, your complaint simply does not correspond to the objective reality. You are proposing a dangerous destabilizing solution to a non-existent problem.
Post by: Euclidean on November 20, 2007, 09:09:52 PM
So what if it has the dollar sign on it? Does the US government have exclusive rights to the dollar sign?
YES, IN FACT, THEY DO.
Will you people PLEASE read the goddamned laws, instead of just babbling that they don't exist, because you never read them?
In fact, early in the 20th century, this guy would have been already locked up for life for counterfeiting. Earlier than that, past century, he might have been already dropped on a rope. The laws are that old!
Educate yourself before opening your mouth! Jesus christ!
I love your rants that are so explosive and don't address the issue at hand because I wasn't referring to any law at all, but rather the reality that no, the US government does not have exclusive use of the $ sign in the written English language. The US Mint has no monopoly on the "$" symbol in the common vernacular. Why is that important? Because a reasonable person would most likely realize that just because something is called a "dollar" or is labeled as a "dollar" doesn't mean it's a FRN.
There are plenty of non FRN dollars in existence. For instance dollars in circulation are minted by: Australia, the Bahamas, Barbados, Canada, Jamaica, Liberia, Singapore, and New Zealand. I'm sure there's tons more I'm forgetting. The board game Monopoly uses. They are all referred to with the "$" sign, it is not reserved for the FRN.
Putting "$20" on their coin is quite accurate as they are in fact dollars, just not government generated ones. It's the same as Monopoly money. No reasonable person should assume that a dollar sign is a claim it's an American dollar.
In fact, I don't recall seeing an actual dollar sign on any FRNs lately. If anything actually putting it on their coin makes it look more fake.
You also seem to think I'm sympathetic to the company in the matter. I'm not, they are making toy money that serves no useful purpose I can see. However I do not see this clear cut criminal case you claim to have at all.
I will clarify that some of the people who use these things think they're doing something good. I admire them for sticking their neck out and sticking to their beliefs they're doing something good even though I don't think what they're doing will ever work. I'm content to leave them well enough alone, and not get my jollies by vicariously egging on some prosecutor at an attempt to lash out at people who look at things differently than I do.
There's also a huge difference between the likelihood that someone somewhere was fooled by a Liberty Dollar, and a deliberate attempt on the company's part to deceive people being provable in court. The latter is held to a much more strict standard, or at least it should be, to the point where it's frustrating to those who would prosecute them. That's not because NORFED is special, but because we should all be treated that way.
On a more philosophical level I always ask myself "Where is the direct harm against another inherent in this action?" Producing that coin as shown is inherently benign. No one gets robbed or hurt. If it's not causing direct harm I balk at my tax dollars being spent to prosecute it when there's plenty of killers, thieves, and rapists to be had. Our system doesn't have infinite resources, we must prioritize. Go after the pedos and leave the people who make silly money alone.
Now if NORFED's practices really have defrauded people, I say there should be a class action lawsuit instead. In a court where the standard goes by "more likely than not" vs. "beyond a reasonable doubt", NORFED would probably lose. Just because I don't see a clear evidence of a crime here doesn't mean I think NORFED should be left unmolested or unpunished if people have been fooled by their products.
Besides, that remedy wouldn't make martyrs out of them, it would just send the company into bankruptcy and damage their reputation to make them look like cheats. But apparently some people are happy to give them what they want and let them play the role of underdog.
Post by: LAK on November 20, 2007, 10:44:03 PM
Quote
It is barter if you have an established free market value for a product, and with both parties' knowledge of that value. Barter deals with products of known or commonly accepted value.
In the case of the coins they were "suggesting" you use them as a substitue for common currency, and that you "encourage" the recipient (who has no foreknowledge of the coin, it's metal content, or any intrinsic value) to accept it at a worth in excess of the metal content's market value. That's not bartering. That's deceiving someone intentionally just to "get back at the government." And it's wrong, both morally and legally.
Barter amounts to an agreement of exchange between two parties. Any product, item, service, etc has a value, or is worth, what anyone is willing to pay or exchange for it.In the case of the coins they were "suggesting" you use them as a substitue for common currency, and that you "encourage" the recipient (who has no foreknowledge of the coin, it's metal content, or any intrinsic value) to accept it at a worth in excess of the metal content's market value. That's not bartering. That's deceiving someone intentionally just to "get back at the government." And it's wrong, both morally and legally.
That is basically how barter works, and that is only "free trade" afterall
Post by: LAK on November 20, 2007, 10:46:28 PM
Quote
Other than their bullion coins, how much intrinsic value do the circulating coins coming out of the US Mint have?]
WHO is doing the defrauding?
Exactly.
WHO is doing the defrauding?
Post by: Len Budney on November 21, 2007, 03:14:44 AM
But the whole point of the argument we are having is that if the economy expands, as measured if imperfectly by the number of computers sold per year, you have to expand the money supply to match the increase in total wealth.
No, you don't "have to expand the money supply."
Quote
Nobody forces you to keep US scrip.
Legal tender laws. One can't live in this country without using FRNs.
Quote
Quote
It's indirect robbery, which is why they like it so much: it fools most of the people most of the time.
The average US family's savings account is less than 5,000 dollars. Most people don't save enough to be affected by inflation to their savings in any meaningful way...
That's nonsense, but it's immoral nonsense. You're suggesting that stealing a little from everyone isn't crime "in any meaningful way."
--Len.
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 21, 2007, 07:02:09 AM
Putting "$20" on their coin is quite accurate as they are in fact dollars, just not government generated ones. It's the same as Monopoly money. No reasonable person should assume that a dollar sign is a claim it's an American dollar.
Pictures of the coins have already been posted. The "USA" in large letters on one of the sides, together with "liberty" and the dollar sign will confuse anyone who does not know who Ron Paul is or whose vision is not good enough. This is especially true since the issuance of a plethora of new one-dollars and state quarters more recently. How would one know? A reasonable jury will find that these guys are counterfeiters. On the other hand, they would likely be acquitted if they had "Disney World", Uncle Scrooge's mug, a non-dollar sign, "Neverland" etc. on their coin.
I would imagine that if somebody prints a fake driver's license with your name on it then gets a credit line against your name, you'd be pissed. It is called identity theft and is illegal. When that guy is dragged to court, will anybody buy his defense that "I have the right to print and use whatever I want; if anybody confuses it for a genuine article, well, that's their own damn fault!"
Post by: Len Budney on November 21, 2007, 12:32:14 PM
Pictures of the coins have already been posted. The "USA" in large letters on one of the sides, together with "liberty" and the dollar sign will confuse anyone who does not know who Ron Paul is or whose vision is not good enough.
I also think that the resemblance was intended to fool people, while being different enough to defend in court. The slogan "Trust in God" stamped on the rounds particularly speaks to that. It's different enough that they can argue people should know the difference, but similar enough that someone ignorant or not paying attention will mistake it for a coin. Similarly, the little pitch they're supposed to use technically does make it clear that the coin isn't legal tender, but any inattention or ignorance from the listener, or any mistake by the speaker, will leave the impression that the LDs are US currency.
Since the jury will experience all those same confusions, I'm afraid NORFED is toast. They should have (1) distinguished their barter tokens much better, (2) not denominated them in dollars, and (3) not charged such obscene seigniorage.
--Len.
Post by: WeedWhacker on November 22, 2007, 03:55:42 AM
Quote
Under 18 U.S.C. ? 486, it is a Federal crime to utter or pass, or attempt to utter or pass, any coins of gold or silver intended for use as current money except as authorized by law.
"Current money" is a synonym for "legal tender". By the makers' own words, the LD has never claimed to be nor was intended for use as "legal tender". The law does not address so-called non-legal tender, aka bartering.
Side note: inflation is theft.