Magical Sailor Fuku

The US currency's primarily function is paying off debts. It says so on the bills.

*slaps Nikkou*

You've done something that many people don't do.

You paid attention.

*points to the Federal Reserve Act of 1913*

Say no more shall I.

Oh, uh... watch out, it's a dark, dark path you're looking down. Lots of ugly things. Think before you enter.

I've got no worries.

I just thought that it was ingenious wordplay, and perhaps not a complete coincidence, either. Just think about it... Our paper money can be referred to as bills, and bills are also a record of debt, as well as a way of prompting repayment due to said debt. Right now, an unhealthy amount of US citizens are in debt, and so is the government. And America, in general, is a big, fat consumer these days. Which means that there're more debtors than debtees right now. And right on our money, it uses "debt" instead of something else. Of course, I guess it's hard to "trade" with this system, because its focus in on profit. And when you make profit, monetarily, it can't be a win-win transaction. So, debt is prevalent. :O

And I'm rambling. Woo! But I did manage to take the bite and the bark out of what I really wanted to say. XD;;

I will take all your money in monoply. It will be with the purple ones that will put you away!! @_@

Isn’t paying bills what money does best? ((and buying junk… and internet.... and buying junk on the internet))

Unfortunately, the United States has apparently bought a bit TOO much junk on the internet...or a bit too many guns. (Manufactured a bit too many, too. The army uses only United States Manufactured goods.)

Really all money does is pay off bills, just depends how you look at it, when you buy something, the price they ask for is the bill, when you ask for a service, the money they ask for is the bill, the only real acception I can see is gambling, and if people used money in itself as entertainment, such as origami.

But there's only a debt when there's a loss. You see, when you buy something, you're buying it at a higher value than it's worth. It's not a trading of things of equal value, but someone who profits, and someone who doesn't. That's why it can be referred to as debt instead of as trade. Even paying for a service is not a trade, because it often includes the use of over-valued equipment and/or products. That's how you get less rich and more poor in a population with greater ease, because, monetarily, you're almost always having a winner and a loser. It's not very common to actually strike a trade.

It's all just semantic silliness, though. Either way you look at it, America's a debtor of biblical proportions. It might want to watch out for fire and brimstone.

Monthlies wrote:I've got no worries.

I just thought that it was ingenious wordplay, and perhaps not a complete coincidence, either. Just think about it... Our paper money can be referred to as bills, and bills are also a record of debt, as well as a way of prompting repayment due to said debt. Right now, an unhealthy amount of US citizens are in debt, and so is the government. And America, in general, is a big, fat consumer these days. Which means that there're more debtors than debtees right now. And right on our money, it uses "debt" instead of something else. Of course, I guess it's hard to "trade" with this system, because its focus in on profit. And when you make profit, monetarily, it can't be a win-win transaction. So, debt is prevalent. :O

And I'm rambling. Woo! But I did manage to take the bite and the bark out of what I really wanted to say. XD;;

It's more evil than that.

Our money used to be backed by gold and silver. As long as the reserves were not molested in each bank (frequently they were though), your dollar was worth X in silver or gold, and if you were uncertain about the future of your bank, you could cash in for siver and gold.

Then they switched us to debt money, and forced us to accept it. Now we trade money that is just a note that we borrowed money to make the money. Which is the height of stupidity.

Anyway, read up, it's interesting stuff.

Yeah, I know about it. ;p I just figured that I'd be more reality-friendly with the other peoples. XD;;

Then they switched us to debt money, and forced us to accept it. Now we trade money that is just a note that we borrowed money to make the money. Which is the height of stupidity.

Yeah. Fiat money is sort of a complicated issue. I don't think one can dismiss it as being "stupid" without a legitimate argument. Personally, I feel it it has its ups and downs. The downs being its inflationary nature and the increased control over the economy it gives the government, and the ups being its short-term stability and the way its pretty much killed deflation. And in fact, I think it can be argued that America could not have sustaiend its incredible economic growth over the 20th century if it had been on the gold standard. Or whatever retarded standard we would've switched to. I'm looking at you, free silver.

And the whole "demand precious metals for your money" thing isn't that great really. People tried that en masse a few years back. Did not end well. What was that called? Oh yeah, the Great Depression. (I know that there were many, many more prominent reasons for the Great Depression. In fact, the whole banking thing was more of a effect than a cause. But that was a great scene in It's A Wonderful Life, so whatever. Also, people wanting their stuff back whenever would open the can of worms that is fractional reserve banking, so best just forget this paragraph entirely.)

And Nikkou, I think you're forgetting that people enjoy having things that they want. Because people enjoy things, they're willing to buy things for more than the value of the materials and labor that went into producing them. Or alternatively, in the case of things that are more "needs" than "wants," you're paying extra for someone to do what you don't want to do. For instance, I am willing to pay an extra couple of bucks to have someone else slaughter, clean, and saute a chicken for me. The current debt of the American middle-class is, in my opinion, more the result of cultural issues than of inherent economic ones. And the increasing stratification between America's rich and poor is too complex an issue to be boiled down to "winners and losers."

Maybe it can be boiled down to... The Good, the Bad, and the Lazy? XD

Saya wrote:Yeah. Fiat money is sort of a complicated issue. I don't think one can dismiss it as being "stupid" without a legitimate argument. Personally, I feel it it has its ups and downs. The downs being its inflationary nature and the increased control over the economy it gives the government, and the ups being its short-term stability and the way its pretty much killed deflation. And in fact, I think it can be argued that America could not have sustaiend its incredible economic growth over the 20th century if it had been on the gold standard. Or whatever retarded standard we would've switched to. I'm looking at you, free silver.

Let's suppose for a moment that we run on a Gold standard. Let us also suppose that we want to maintain a three percent annual economic growth. At three percent growth, the total value of goods and services produced will double every thirty years or so. However, unless the gold supply also doubles during that span, then each unit of gold will end up purchasing more goods and services (deflation). The only way to have constant high growth with no deflation is for the gold supply to increase exponentially--for our three percent example, we would have to gain as much gold in the next thirty years as we already have right now, and then double it again in the next thirty years after that. After twenty or so more doublings, we will need more gold than could ever be extracted from the Earth.

The reason for this is quite simple. Let us say that on the one hand you have "all the money in the world", and on the other hand you have "all the goods, services, and property in the world". The value of what is in either hand is exactly equal to what is in the other hand. This is because "all the money in the world" can never buy MORE than "all the things to buy in the world", and "all the things to buy in the world" can never be sold for more than "all the money in the world". The upshot of all of this is that the money supply must stay roughly in proportion to the amount of things to buy, or else you will have deflation if the goods side of the scale gets heavier, or inflation if the money side gets heavier.

Down with currency, I still say. Humans can't handle value properly, so no amount of anything will ever work. I guess a way to try and get around that is by making value accessible when it doesn't exist, but, as far as I can tell, that has its own cons-a-plenty.

I remember the food ol' days, when it was just a matter of loving, and loving in return. Treat your neighbor as you would yourself. I guess humanity fell far from the tree of the knowledge of good and bad. XD

Saya wrote:

Then they switched us to debt money, and forced us to accept it. Now we trade money that is just a note that we borrowed money to make the money. Which is the height of stupidity.

Yeah. Fiat money is sort of a complicated issue. I don't think one can dismiss it as being "stupid" without a legitimate argument.

My arguments here have been PAGES long.

Just ask Eirien, Eri or Niad. I know they've both seen me rant here multiple times on that.

Personally, I feel it it has its ups and downs. The downs being its inflationary nature

Yet gold will buy you what it bought thousands of years ago, now it costs 10 times the price for things, and that's just from the 30s and 50s.

The amount of inflation we've seen since our switch to fiat money is so off the scale that, and the sad thing for me is that I've seen the "but the inflation" argument so often that I can't even laugh at it anymore, because so many people take that crap seriously.

The facts do not agree at all.

and the increased control over the economy it gives the government, and the ups being its short-term stability and the way its pretty much killed deflation. And in fact, I think it can be argued that America could not have sustaiend its incredible economic growth over the 20th century if it had been on the gold standard. Or whatever retarded standard we would've switched to. I'm looking at you, free silver.

And the whole "demand precious metals for your money" thing isn't that great really. People tried that en masse a few years back. Did not end well. What was that called? Oh yeah, the Great Depression.

WRONG.

WRONG.

WRONG.

WRONG.

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzt.

Wrong answer.

Fiat money was legalized in 1913.

Any text book you pick up will you "overspeculation."

That suddenly popped up.

When?

Since 1913.

Where?

Banks that could print as much fiat money as they wanted, did so, and created more businesses (AND DEBT!) than there were people to consume.

And since you bring up the great depression, my dear friend Saya, if you take a quick search through some on-line news, just days ago Detroit *****HAS**** hit great depression unemployment numbers. Now I'm obvbiously not blowing off Detroit's problems, but on the other hand, look at what Detroit represents.

Manufacturing.

Now we're a nation of debters with a bank on every corner but we can't get enough factories to keep common laborers employed, we've got Americans eating out of soup kitchens while 5,000 Mexicans are being brought out of a factory of 17,000 people total, all with copied social security numbers?

Something's very wrong with this picture.

Fiat is your problem, the numbers and historical precendence of THOUSANDS OF YEARS of banking, prove it.

And I'm sorry for opening the can of worms, but gold wasn't the problem. Money yes! Fiat money! Gold? No. I can't seem to recall anyone's that tried to blame gold directly. "Lack of liquidity" and other banker-lie terms for "but I wasn't able to counterfeit enough money!" yes! But not gold.

Yet gold will buy you what it bought thousands of years ago, now it costs 10 times the price for things, and that's just from the 30s and 50s.

The amount of inflation we've seen since our switch to fiat money is so off the scale that, and the sad thing for me is that I've seen the "but the inflation" argument so often that I can't even laugh at it anymore, because so many people take that crap seriously.

The facts do not agree at all.

Well, I guess you've seen the argument so many times that you didn't actually read what I wrote, since I was talking about inflation as a downside of fiat money. Not gold. Fiat. Gold is clearly less inflationary. I'd agree that anyone who made the opposing argument would be ridiculous, but I did not.

Also, I think I addressesd the fact that people messing around in banks was not a real cause of the depression, and that I was using the Depression as a way of invoking that scene from It's a Wonderful Life, which may or may not have been that relevant, but it's a really good scene. Jimmy Stewart totally took those hicks down a peg.

Any textbook that claims overspeculation as a singular cause is really oversimplifying the issue. And if their singular cause for overspeculation was the decline of the gold standard they'd also have a weird Austrian school of economics bent that I've never seen in a standard history textbook.

This is much more political and opinion-y and super-debatable, but I think that the American "common laborer" is going the way of the American farmer. We're sort of in a transitional period right now, so some people are kind of screwed. I do think we should deal with this issue and not sweep it under the rug, but I don't think switching back to gold will change structural economic changes or immigration fraud.

And modern economies haven't really been around for that long, so I don't really see how "thousands of years" of banking could prove anything. For instance, Ancient Rome got into some trouble when they started debasing copper and silver coins, but they also had an economy based on pillaging people and several rulers who, by all accounts, were insane. Alos, the reason why debasement failed is for a completely different reason than what you've been talking about. My point is, it can be sort of shaky to apply historical paradigms to modern situations.