patrick.net

THROW DOWN CHALLANGE - to Kevin, or anyone else out there. PLEASE post the CURRENT definition of "a dollar" (unrelated to the historical definition - so many grains of gold or silver, etc).

If you can, you'll shut me up forever and I will go away with my "tail between my legs", never to return.

GAME ON !!!

Honest Abe says

PLEASE post the CURRENT definition of "a dollar"

Here you go:

http://www.x-rates.com/

Honest Abe says

If you can, you'll shut me up forever and I will go away with my "tail between my legs", never to return.

I don't think you listen very well Abe. This has been answered for you before. The dollar is used as a vehicle for transactions. A temporary store of value. We all know the definition of a dollar. It is a single unit of our currency and the worlds "reserve currency."

I don't think you really mean define the dollar. What you mean is what is it worth ?

Answer: It is worth what it will buy now. If you have a problem with the stability of that value, then don't keep your savings in dollars. Keep it in gold or stocks or RE or whatever.

Too much freedom ?

wthrfrk80, the chart defines nothing, it simply shows exchange rates. If I missed THE DEFINITION, please point it out, because I don't see it. Respectfully, Abe.

Honest Abe says

wthrfrk80, the chart defines nothing, it simply shows exchange rates. If I missed THE DEFINITION, please point it out, because I don't see it. Respectfully, Abe.

The current definition(s) of a dollar*:
1.567 british pounds
0.997 canadian dollars
1.298 euros
1.067 australian dollars
1.00 mcdonald's "mcdouble" with cheese
1.00 mcdonald's ice cream sundae
0.030 ounces of silver
0.010 barrels of oil

and so on...

*subject to change with time depending on the relative scarcity of dollars to the things it can buy

Kevin, I look forward to you shutting me up by providing the definition of a dollar.

In the meantime, let me explain the direct connection between military aggression, empire building and war with fiat currency. Having a fiat currency system allows the government to create money out of thin air. Empire building, maintaining bases around the world, military aggression and war is horribly expensive. Taxpayers wouldn't put up with the expense if it was funded purely by taxes.

So the sneeky critters in power do an end run and create the money out of thin air to conceal the real expense to the tax payer...something they COULD NOT DO WITH A SOUND MONEY SYSTEM (that because you can't create gold or silver out of thin air).

Thats part if the financial restraint placed on public officials with a sound, non-fiat, monetary system.

I'm really surprised that you haven't learned that on your own, as smart as you appear to be.

Best regards, Honest Abe.

whrthrfk80, that's not a definition either, now you're simply being silly. BUT YOU GOT IT RIGHT AT THE VERY BOTTOM: "SUBJECT TO CHANGE".

May I ask you, is a gallon subject to change? Is a foot subject to change? Is a meter subject to change? Is a pound subject to change? Is an hour subject to change? All of these examples, and millions of others, measure or quantify something. That provides stability and honesty, rather than confusion, chaos or catastrophy.

Since the dollar has no definition, its unstable (subject to change), dishonest (I'm selling you a pound of butter but only provide 12 ounces) which leads to confusion, chaos or in the case of building a sky scraper...or a jumbo jet, it would lead to catastrophy, wouldn't it? Check Mate?

It's definitely true that Republican states are way bigger consumers of the social welfare programs that they so bitterly complain about

So, let's give them what they want. Let's end all that welfare and call it the Ant and Grasshopper Bill.

I don't think I changed. I did say that the government likes fiat currency for several reasons:

1. can threaten devaluation to foreigners who hold US Treasuries
2. can confiscate money from citizens by printing more instead of raising taxes
3. can punish savers and force them to spend or lose to "stimulate" the economy

Yep, that's the whole point. Still, that is a function of our fiat currency system and not inherent properties of fiat currency systems.

None of these things are possible under my single dollar solution.

Dan, how would our fiat currency system cause the problems Patrick outlined above, but NOT be inherent properties of a fiat currency systems? That's a contradiction.

In other words, if the fiat monetary system didn't cause the problems, what did??? I think you don't fully understand what inflation is, what causes it, and how it confiscates money from citizens (some correctly call it an Inflation Tax), and by extension how a sound money policy would help to eliminate those problems.

Kevin, are you going to shut me up...or did I check mate you?

Dan8267 says

None of these things are possible under my single dollar solution.

What's your single dollar solution again?

What's your single dollar solution again?

You run the entire world's economy on a single dollar (or whatever else you want to call it). The banking system breaks the dollar up into discrete units that are negative powers of ten like nanodollars.

If you want paper currency, you print the power of ten on the bill like "10^-9" for nanodollars, but I'd go 100% electronic currency.

Let's say some economist argues that there isn't enough money in the system and we need more liquidity. Well, if our current lowest denomination is nanodollars, then there are exactly 1 billion monetary units.

To shut the economist up, the banking system then allows for a new denomination, picadollars. Everyone can now exchange picadollars. No money has changed hands. No purchasing power has changed hands. But we have just increased the money supply 1000 fold. If that's not enough liquidity, the economist is full of crap.

Restaurants don't even have to update their menus since a hamburger that cost 21 nanodollars would still cost 21 nanodollars or 21,000 picadollars.

And we can indefinitely expand the number of monetary units without devaluing the currency, subversively taxing savers and wage earners, or forcing people to spend their money or lose it.

In fact, such a system would perfectly meet all the purposes of money, which acts as

1. A unit of measurement of exchange value (unit of accounting)
2. A medium of exchange, and
3. A store of exchange value for future use

As a unit of accounting, it is the best possible one as you can finally compare prices of goods over very long periods of time.

And there is mathematically no way to cheat in such a system. You cannot print more money, and you never need to. The value of the entire monetary supply perfectly represents the value of all goods and services in an economy. It's like having a commodity based currency where your commodity basket is everything in the economy.

Under the single dollar system, money is a persistent claim on wealth.

Yeah dude, I have a job and kids and shit.

Anyway, the dollar is the currency of the united states, created by the first coinage act, and having its value revised numerous times through different coinage acts and other agreements until the coinage act of 1965, which effectively made it into a fiat currency (though technically it was still convertible to fixed amounts of gold until 1971); a dollar is a dollar, the currency of the united states of america as chosen by the united states congress under the authority of the US constitution, and it needs no other definition any more than gold needs another definition.

I understand that you have issues with the dollar not being defined in terms of something that isn't a dollar. I also expect that you'll claim that since the law doesn't literally say "the value of a dollar shall be equal to [some amount of some other thing]" (any more, anyway), there is no definition (and thus you won't have to fulfill your promise to go away), but you'll still be wrong.

Honest Abe says

whrthrfk80, that's not a definition either, now you're simply being silly. BUT YOU GOT IT RIGHT AT THE VERY BOTTOM: "SUBJECT TO CHANGE".

May I ask you, is a gallon subject to change? Is a foot subject to change? Is a meter subject to change? Is a pound subject to change? Is an hour subject to change? All of these examples, and millions of others, measure or quantify something. That provides stability and honesty, rather than confusion, chaos or catastrophy.

Since the dollar has no definition, its unstable (subject to change), dishonest (I'm selling you a pound of butter but only provide 12 ounces) which leads to confusion, chaos or in the case of building a sky scraper...or a jumbo jet, it would lead to catastrophy, wouldn't it? Check Mate?

Kevin, your points are well taken. Like you, I wish that the value of things were a sort of absolute constant.

The problem is, something has value only because we think it has value. A dollar has value because we think it has value. A double-cheeseburger has value because we think it has value. And so on. Our perception of value generally comes from scarcity. For example, we humans tend to assign more value to scarce things (like gold) than abundant things (like grass). (If you own cattle, even grass has value.)

A dollar is valuable only as long as it is "scarce." As we all know, if the supply of dollars increases dramatically, the value of dollars will decrease rapidly. Inflation.

wthrfrk80 says

A dollar is valuable only as long as it is "scarce." As we all know, if the supply of dollars increases dramatically, the value of dollars will decrease rapidly. Inflation.

True only in instances when the demand for dollars remains constant. Printing money does not cause inflation in itself; there is a demand factor as well..

That is, increased money supply combined with falling velocity of money equals little to no inflation.

A lesson learned by many (myself included) who bet on inflation (and rising interest rates) in 2008-2009.

Historically, Demand causes inflation, not money supply. The theme of the central bank has been to stimulate demand by increasing the money supply. This has not worked, hence, no inflation.

david1 says

That is, increased money supply combined with falling velocity of money equals little to no inflation.

True, if the supply of money increases rapidly but doesn't enter circulation (i.e. everyone just hoards it) then there will be no inflation.

I was just trying to make a point about how value derives partially from scarcity.

david1 says

Simply giving it to those who hoard does nothing but protect the relative wealth of the hoarders.

Exactly right. The money just protected the banks (and Fannie and Freddie) from their own mistakes. Privatize the profits, socialize the losses. We're a socialist country all right. We have socialism that benefits the ultra-rich at the expense of the taxpaying public.

Yes, call me a conspiracy theorist, but it seems pretty clear to me that any organization like the Federal Reserve, which was founded by the biggest banks, was probably created primarily to benefit the biggest banks.

It may have some useful secondary functions, but the primary function is to bail out big banks when they get into trouble, at the expense of everyone else.

The only reason we need a "lender of last resort" is that the banks promise two contractory things:

A. You can have your money at any time.
B. We will lend out your money and pay you interest.

In reality, you can have A or B but not both. If your money is lent out, then it's not available. If it's available, then it's not lent out.

CD's are at least honest: your money is tied up for this fixed term. It's demand deposits that are the problem.

Yes, call me a conspiracy theorist, but it seems pretty clear to me that any organization like the Federal Reserve, which was founded by the biggest banks, was probably created primarily to benefit the biggest banks.

A. You can have your money at any time.
B. We will lend out your money and pay you interest.

In reality, you can have A or B but not both.

True. However, without inflation (the increase in the money supply), B would not be necessary.

In a non-reserve banking system, you could have B and C where C is "you can have your money within N days". The greater the N, the larger the interest. And since your money doesn't lose purchasing power, this is a great solution for both short term and long term savers. Fractional reserve banking is neither necessary nor productive.

I find it amusing how people seem to believe that dollars had some sort of fixed, immutable value when they were contractually tied to arbitrary amounts of some metal.

Every coinage act (I think there were 8 or 9?) dramatically altered what a dollar could buy. The government could, and did, arbitrarily change the value of the currency.

So you had manipulation, you had inflation, and you had deflation.

The world was not a magical, perfect place of economic fairness under metallic standards.

Kevin, following your ignorant line of logic we could say "I find it amusing how people seem to believe a pound should consist of 16 ounces, and that a foot should be exactly 12 inches, a year should be exactly 365 days, and a gallon should be...well, you get the picture, right?

Unfortunately you don't get the picture, if you did you would not have made your child-like statement above.

Kevin, pretend I'm your boss and I said to you: "Kevin, I know your monthly pay is $3,500 per month, but since the world in not a magical, perfect place of economic fainess under metallic standards, this month your pay will be $3,350.
Next month its going to be $3,195, the following month its going to be $3,100 and each month following its going to decrease about 3%.

How would you feel about that Kevin? Would you feel good about it? Would you think that was "fair"?

But thats exactly what IS happening, except you don't know it, or you refuse to acknowledge it, or your idology prevents you from accepting it. You are part of the problem if you cannot understand basic economic or financial concepts - because you encourage and perpetuate the misconceptions.

I don't want to keep telling you this...but - CHECK MATE.

Honest Abe says

"I find it amusing how people seem to believe a pound should consist of 16 ounces, and that a foot should be exactly 12 inches, a year should be exactly 365 days, and a gallon should be...well, you get the picture, right?

Abe, you sure are one confused right winger.

A gallon or a foot is comparable to a 20 dollar bill (or some other denomination).

A gallon is a measure of liquid volume. A gallon is 4 quarts, 8 pints, 16 cups and so on.

A 20 dollar bill is , two 10 dollar bills, four 5dollar bills, 80 quarters, etc.

If you still don't get it, fill in the blank.

Gallon is a measure of liquid volume

Foot is a measure of linear length

Dollar is a measure of ____________ .

If you think the answer should be value of gold or silver, that's silly because like the dollar as it is now, the value of metals fluctuate significantly over time.

Your answer needs to be something more concrete than "value" or "money" if your comparison is going to hold up. I'm sure you read it from one of your right wing idols, or talk radio entertainers. IF only you could learn that those guys are idiots.

Dollars are money, not a measure of money (well acually one dollar is a measure of dollars).

In the last couple of years, the fed and our monetary policy has gotten somewhat disconnected from reality, and we are not in a healthy economic state. Your points are somewhat valid, but they are way oversimplified.

It's a complicated world, with a lot of international trade going on. At present, banks and central banks are part of a huge entrenched system. If and when the system evolves to something better, it won't be because people rallied against the fed.

Uh, Abe, the point you're missing is that what you describe is *EXACTLY WHAT WAS HAPPENING UNDER METALLIC STANDARDS*. Please learn about the coinage acts and banking acts.

The difference between today and then is that at least today, the value of the dollar is tied to overall economic performance and perception of value rather than being altered by the whims of politicians.

Comparing a man-made invention (a dollar) to a mathematical truth demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of how the universe works.

A dollar is a dollar, much like gold is gold or carbon is carbon. All of these things are worth whatever someone will give you in trade for them.

As I said before: What is an ounce of gold worth? Where is this defined? How is it that today my ounce of gold can buy 100 goats but next year it might buy 110?

I understand that you refuse to accept that a dollar is a base measurement, because to you it's just a piece of paper and you don't understand macro economics. That's OK though, because the global economy doesn't need you to understand it in order to work.

Kevin, incorrect - that is what happened as the result of INFLATION which you are obviously incapable of comprehending.

Since you have no understanding of the foundation of the concept, all the extensions of that concept will be flawed...which is clearly the case with you.

I have tried to educate you but you fail to learn...you can bring a horse to water but you can't make him drink, comes to mind with you.

I also recall this "Don't argue with idiots, it only brings you down to their lever, and then they win by experience". Thats you in a nutshell, therefor I am terminating my conversation with you on this issue.

Indentured voters, welfare reciepients, union members, socialitst's, elitist's, liberals, community organizers, New Black Panthers, attorneys, government employees, those who vote for living, and the like are in an economic battle for the productive results of those who work for a living, start businesses, pay taxes and would simply like to keep the friuts of their own labor.

In other words they don't want their private property stolen from them and given others. They would rather redistribute the wealth by buying cars, boats, houses, 3-D TV's, new carpeting, putting in a back yard pool, investing in the stock martket, installing solar to their home's, ETC, ETC, ETC, ETC. All of which stimulates the economy, puts and keeps people working, and increases the tax revenue...without stealing from others.

Something the government seems to be incapable of doing.

Honest Abe says

"Don't argue with idiots, it only brings you down to their lever, and then they win by experience"

Funny. I don't see anyone lowering themselves to your level Abe, or losing for that matter.

Kevin says

A dollar is a dollar, much like gold is gold or carbon is carbon. All of these things are worth whatever someone will give you in trade for them.

There's a difference though!

A new dollar can be created at will by the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve cannot create gold, or even carbon.

So it's really a question of power. Should a private cartel of large banks have the power to create money, or should we just choose to use some element outside the control of any human?

There are arguments both ways, but I prefer not to give bankers any power.

Kevin, its a fact that 25% of the population has mental issues. So if your three closest friends are normal...its YOU.

Cloud. Double standards, no logic, lack of common sense, feelings of entitlement, feelings over facts, unintended consequences, force rather than cooperation, the illusion of compassion, eutopia, tree hugging, inflation via fiat currency, killing babies, embracing communistic policies, and so much more - welcome to the liberal's world.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120220090610.htm

Just sayin'

Kevin, are you just sayin' you agree that the groups named in the original post above will be voting DemocRAT - or are you saying you agree that the link you posted supports my contention that 'the dollar' is fraudulent because it lacks a uniform standard?

The link you posted used phrases like "consistent results", "universal standard", "ensures long term stability" - things the dollar lacks. Thats because the dollar is whatever the current tyrant says it is.

Unfortunately you support that dishonest mentality, which is why refer to you and your kind as the enemy within.

Have a good day, Abe

Honest Abe says

Kevin, are you just sayin' you agree that the groups named in the original post above will be voting DemocRAT

I don't know what Kevin thinks, but I think all the answers in the beginning of the thread show pretty well that all those groups don't vote Democrat.

Honest Abe says

It is reported that 20% of Americans rely 100%

Not true.
The unemployment rate is only 8%.

The other 12% must rely not 100%.

Honest Abe says

Kevin, are you just sayin' you agree that the groups named in the original post above will be voting DemocRAT - or are you saying you agree that the link you posted supports my contention that 'the dollar' is fraudulent because it lacks a uniform standard?

The link you posted used phrases like "consistent results", "universal standard", "ensures long term stability" - things the dollar lacks. Thats because the dollar is whatever the current tyrant says it is.

Unfortunately you support that dishonest mentality, which is why refer to you and your kind as the enemy within.

Have a good day, Abe

Ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies ponies

PONIES!

When Ron Paul is president we will also get:

More Freedom
More Liberty
More Privacy
A sound currency
The ability to keep the fruits of our own labor
Less war
Less empire building
less inflation
Lower taxes
More rule of law

Nomo (and Kevin) why are you against those positive things? What happened in your life to cause you to feel that way? Maybe you should seek help or go to some type of 12 step program.

I'm pulling for you both!!! Good luck on a speedy recovery.

Best regards,

Abe

Honest Abe says

The ability to keep the fruits of our own labor

How about the ability to keep the fruits of other people's labor, via rents on completely non-productive parasitical ownership of land and other capital? That OK with you?

Would you have any limits at all on the power of the new hereditary aristocracy to continue to accumulate an ever-larger percentage of assets without work or significant taxation, or would you simply worship them?

The Republican party line is to simply worship them.

Abe,

I respect your views, but...

The economic value of anything is purely subjective. A dollar is worth only what you think it is worth. It doesn't need to have a precise objective definition to have value. Value is an inherently subjective thing. Kind of like the answer to the question, "are horsies pretty?" If today's dollars aren't worth anything to you, that's fine! You are perfectly free to exchange them for somthing you think IS valuable.

Let's say the government puts out a decree that says the dollar is exactly equal to 1/1700 of an ounce of gold, and will be forever and ever. Fine.

But what is the value of gold? Why does gold have value? It's just shiney yellow stuff that doesn't have much practical use. Gold is worth only what you think it's worth, and thus a dollar would STILL be worth only what you think it's worth. If a huge bonanza of gold is discovered somewhere and enters the market, the value of the gold (and thus dollars) relative to everything else would decrease.

Personally I'd rather have gold miners regulate the supply of money than a bunch of Banksters acting in their own interest. It's an obvious moral hazard I think...if a group of private Banksters can create new money, why can't I?
You and I probably agree on that one.

Would you have any limits at all on the power of the new hereditary aristocracy to continue to accumulate an ever-larger percentage of assets without work or significant taxation, or would you simply worship them?

Remember when the aristocracy changed the term "inheritance tax" to the term "death tax"?

Right on! Doublespeak - straight out of 1984. The Department of War is now The Department of Defense. Soon it will be the Ministry of Love.

The Navy - a Global force for good...armed with weapons of mass destrction.

BTW - common sense (an attribute missing in liberals)SCREAMS all the groups mentioned in the original thread above WILL VOTE democRAT.

Cheers.