Practical Advice For Newbies II

[Famspear]

Instead, go get admitted to an accredited college or university. Major in accounting. After about four years, earn an accounting degree. See if you can hack that.

If I am not mistaken, most states have moved to the 150 semester credit hour rule. While many states allow a person to sit for the CPA exam with only 120 credit hours (the standard four year degree) and specific requirements for accounting courses and business, in order to get licensed, a person needs 150 semester credit hours.

Yep. I forgot to mention that.

[Prof]

Formal education will corrupt and co-op the student, who will "buy in" to the prevailing myths about government, tax, banking, and the economy. Only the true outsider can understand the fallacies, the scheme, the conspiracy, the ---- MATRIX!!!!!!!!!

[Famspear]

Formal education will corrupt and co-op the student, who will "buy in" to the prevailing myths about government, tax, banking, and the economy. Only the true outsider can understand the fallacies, the scheme, the conspiracy, the ---- MATRIX!!!!!!!!!

Yeah, that's the ticket!

Hey, Harvester/Nationwide/johnthetaxist, I have an idea! Since you're so knowledgeable about the modern banking system, let's do this:

Tomorrow morning, you go to work for a bank or the audit department of an accounting firm that audits banks, and go help 'em figure out how the modern banking system works!

Meanwhile, I'll jump into your role: I'll spend my time browsing the internet and copying and pasting nonsense from fringe element websites and pretend I know about complex, technical areas of knowledge where I have zero training and experience!

It'll be loads of fun for both of us!

[Gregg]

Furthermore, when you borrow money, the bank doesn't loan you money it has, it creates new money based on your signature, your promise to pay.

That's not exactly right, and your gross simplification and ignorance is why I prefer not to discuss economics with most people, idiots especially. Your signature does not create the new money, and neither does the bank. The work you do to earn the money to pay back the loan is what creates new wealth, the primary purpose of the Federal Reserve system is to gauge and meter out new currency (again, a big generalization) at the approximate rate that people working and business in general is creating the wealth. Specie backing of currency, besides it other many flaws, will (not "tends to" or "can", WILL) result eventually of concentration of wealth and along with economic instability this is often the source of social upheaval. In other words, the rich will get richer and money will be in the wrong place at the wrong time. A few years of crops not getting financed in time because of inefficient capital deployment and a few million people starve, a few bank runs and resource lags, and governments collapse or wars break out. It's a good thing people like you are ill regarded by those of us with enough sense to tie our shoes (and the ones who actually influence events instead of bitch about them) because if anyone who mattered took you serious you might do some real damage. No run along and leave the grownups alone, you're starting to get tiresome.

[David Merrill]

Furthermore, when you borrow money, the bank doesn't loan you money it has, it creates new money based on your signature, your promise to pay.

That's not exactly right, and your gross simplification and ignorance is why I prefer not to discuss economics with most people, idiots especially. Your signature does not create the new money, and neither does the bank. The work you do to earn the money to pay back the loan is what creates new wealth, the primary purpose of the Federal Reserve system is to gauge and meter out new currency (again, a big generalization) at the approximate rate that people working and business in general is creating the wealth. Specie backing of currency, besides it other many flaws, will (not "tends to" or "can", WILL) result eventually of concentration of wealth and along with economic instability this is often the source of social upheaval. In other words, the rich will get richer and money will be in the wrong place at the wrong time. A few years of crops not getting financed in time because of inefficient capital deployment and a few million people starve, a few bank runs and resource lags, and governments collapse or wars break out. It's a good thing people like you are ill regarded by those of us with enough sense to tie our shoes (and the ones who actually influence events instead of bitch about them) because if anyone who mattered took you serious you might do some real damage. No run along and leave the grownups alone, you're starting to get tiresome.

Hahahaha!!

You just admitted that the bank puts up no consideration!

http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P1.jpg
http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P2.jpg
http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P3.jpg
http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P4.jpg

[Gregg]

Furthermore, when you borrow money, the bank doesn't loan you money it has, it creates new money based on your signature, your promise to pay.

That's not exactly right, and your gross simplification and ignorance is why I prefer not to discuss economics with most people, idiots especially. Your signature does not create the new money, and neither does the bank. The work you do to earn the money to pay back the loan is what creates new wealth, the primary purpose of the Federal Reserve system is to gauge and meter out new currency (again, a big generalization) at the approximate rate that people working and business in general is creating the wealth. Specie backing of currency, besides it other many flaws, will (not "tends to" or "can", WILL) result eventually of concentration of wealth and along with economic instability this is often the source of social upheaval. In other words, the rich will get richer and money will be in the wrong place at the wrong time. A few years of crops not getting financed in time because of inefficient capital deployment and a few million people starve, a few bank runs and resource lags, and governments collapse or wars break out. It's a good thing people like you are ill regarded by those of us with enough sense to tie our shoes (and the ones who actually influence events instead of bitch about them) because if anyone who mattered took you serious you might do some real damage. No run along and leave the grownups alone, you're starting to get tiresome.

Hahahaha!!

You just admitted that the bank puts up no consideration!

http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P1.jpg
http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P2.jpg
http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P3.jpg
http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P4.jpg

you give idiots a bad name. the bank takes the risk of you not repaying the loan, once the money is "created" as you say, wrongly, it can't be "uncreated", they are responsible for it if you don't pay it back....

you are pretty stupid, ya know?

[David Merrill]

you give idiots a bad name. the bank takes the risk of you not repaying the loan, once the money is "created" as you say, wrongly, it can't be "uncreated", they are responsible for it if you don't pay it back....

you are pretty stupid, ya know?

You are short on that. Responsible? - but to nobody except its own shareholders.

[Harvester]

Fascinating, I'd think more than one of you weren't sheeple, but I see you're quite content to be sheared with govt-run frauds. Fammie, with respect to higher education, I did find this:

"Having a lender of last resort is the only way a bank can create money out of nothing and still be protected from a potential "run" by its customers. In other words, it is the means by which the public is forced to pay a hidden tax of inflation to cover the shortfall of fractional-reserve banking. That is why the so-called virtue of a lender of last resort is taught with great reverence today in virtually all academic institutions offering degrees in banking and finance. It is one of the means by which the system perpetuates itself."

"Harvester, what do you imagine the Federal Reserve Banks do? That is, what role or roles do they fulfill?"

Probably something like managing the monetary system for smooth economic sailing - in which role they've failed miserably. Their role of robbing us all blind has been very successful though. Anyway, doesn't matter anymore, we're getting rid of the FED.

[Joe Dirt]

Harv,

You quoted:

"Having a lender of last resort is the only way a bank can create money out of nothing and still be protected from a potential "run" by its customers. In other words, it is the means by which the public is forced to pay a hidden tax of inflation to cover the shortfall of fractional-reserve banking. That is why the so-called virtue of a lender of last resort is taught with great reverence today in virtually all academic institutions offering degrees in banking and finance. It is one of the means by which the system perpetuates itself."

Would you be kind enough to provide the source of the quote?

[David Merrill]

When Congress borrows money on the credit of the United States, bonds are thus legislated into existence and deposited as credit entries in Federal Reserve banks. United States bonds, bills and notes constitute money as affirmed by the Supreme Court (Legal Tender Cases, 110 U.S. 421), and this money when deposited with the Fed becomes collateral from whence the Treasury may write checks against the credit thus created in its account (12 USC 391). For example, suppose Congress appropriates an expenditure of $1 billion. To finance the appropriation Congress creates the $1 billion worth of bonds out of thin air and deposits it with the privately owned Federal Reserve System. Upon receiving the bonds, the Fed credits $1 billion to the Treasury's checking account, holding the deposited bonds as collateral. When the United States deposits its bonds with the Federal Reserve System, private credit is extended to the Treasury by the Fed. Under its power to borrow money, Congress is authorized by the Constitution to contract debt, and whenever something is borrowed it must be returned. When Congress spends the contracted private credit, each use of credit is debt which must be returned to the lender or Fed. Since Congress authorizes the expenditure of this private credit, the United States incurs the primary obligation to return the borrowed credit, creating a National Debt which results when credit is not returned.

However, if anyone else accepts this private credit and uses it to purchase goods and services, the user voluntarily incurs the obligation requiring him to make a return of income whereby a portion of the income is collected by the IRS and delivered to the Federal Reserve banksters. Actually the federal income tax imparts two separate obligations: the obligation to file a return and the obligation to abide by the Internal Revenue Code. The obligation to make a return of income for using private credit is recognized in law as an irrecusable obligation, which according to 'Bouvier's Law Dictionary' (1914 ed.), is "a term used to indicate a certain class of contractual obligations recognized by the law which are imposed upon a person without his consent and without regard to any act of his own." This is distinguished from a recusable obligation which, according to Bouvier, arises from a voluntary act by which one incurs the obligation imposed by the operation of law. The voluntary use of private credit is the condition precedent which imposes the irrecusable obligation to file a tax return. If private credit is not used or rejected, then the operation of law which imposes the irrecusable obligation lies dormant and cannot apply.

In 'Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR Co.' 240 U.S. 1 (1916) the Supreme Court affirmed that the federal income tax is in the class of indirect taxes, which include duties and excises. The personal income tax arises from a duty -- i.e., charge or fee -- which is voluntarily incurred and subject to the rule of uniformity. A charge is a duty or obligation, binding upon him who enters into it, which may be removed or taken away by a discharge (performance): 'Bouvier', p. 459. Our federal personal income tax is not really a tax in the ordinary sense of the word but rather a burden or obligation which the taxpayer voluntarily assumes, and the burden of the tax falls upon those who voluntarily use private credit. Simply stated the tax imposed is a charge or fee upon the use of private credit where the amount of private credit used measures the pecuniary obligation. The personal income tax provision of the Internal Revenue Code is private law rather than public law. "A private law is one which is confined to particular individuals, associations, or corporations": 50 Am.Jur. 12, p.28. In the instant case the revenue code pertains to taxpayers. A private law can be enforced by a court of competent jurisdiction when statutes for its enforcement are enacted: 20 Am.Jur. 33, pgs. 58, 59. The distinction between public and private acts is not always sharply defined when published statutes are printed in their final form: Case v. Kelly, 133 U.S. 21 (1890). Statutes creating corporations are private acts: 20 Am.Jur. 35, p. 60. In this connection, the Federal Reserve Act is private law. Federal Reserve banks derive their existence and corporate power from the Federal Reserve Act: Armano v. Federal Reserve Bank, 468 F.Supp. 674 (1979). A private act may be published as a public law when the general public is afforded the opportunity of participating in the operation of the private law. The Internal Revenue Code is an example of private law which does not exclude the voluntary participation of the general public. Had the Internal Revenue Code been written as substantive public law, the code would be repugnant to the Constitution, since no one could be compelled to file a return and thereby become a witness against himself. Under the fifty titles listed on the preface page of the United States Code, the Internal Revenue Code (26 USC) is listed as having not been enacted as substantive public law, conceding that the Internal Revenue Code is private law. Bouvier declares that private law "relates to private matters which do not concern the public at large." It is the voluntary use of private credit which imposes upon the user the quasi contractual or implied obligation to make a return of income. In 'Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust Co.' 158 U.S. 601 (1895) the Supreme Court had declared the income tax of 1894 to be repugnant to the Constitution, holding that taxation of rents, wages and salaries must conform to the rule of apportionment. However, when this decision was rendered, there was no privately owned central bank issuing private credit and currency but rather public money in the form of legal tender notes and coins of the United States circulated. Public money is the lawful money of the United States which the Constitution authorizes Congress to issue, conferring a property right, whereas the private credit issued by the Fed is neither money nor property, permitting the user an equitable interest but denying allodial title.

Today, we have two competing monetary systems. The Federal Reserve System with its private credit and currency, and the public money system consisting of legal tender United States notes and coins. One could use the public money system, paying all bills with coins and United States notes (if the notes can be obtained), or one could voluntarily use the private credit system and thereby incur the obligation to make a return of income. Under 26 USC 7609 the IRS has carte blanche authority to summon and investigate bank records for the purpose of determining tax liabilities or discovering unknown taxpayers: 'United States v. Berg' 636 F.2d 203 (1980). If an investigation of bank records discloses an excess of $1000 in deposits in a single year, the IRS may accept this as prima facie evidence that the account holder uses private credit and is therefore a person obligated to make a return of income. Anyone who uses private credit -- e.g., bank accounts, credit cards, mortgages, etc. -- voluntarily plugs himself into the system and obligates himself to file. A taxpayer is allowed to claim a $1000 personal deduction when filing his return. The average taxpayer in the course of a year uses United States coins in vending machines, parking meters, small change, etc., and this public money must be deducted when computing the charge for using private credit.

On June 5, 1933, the day of infamy arrived. Congress on that date enacted House Joint Resolution 192, which provided that the people convert or turn in their gold coins in exchange for Federal Reserve notes. Through the operation of law, H.J.R. 192 took us off the gold standard and placed us on the dollar standard where the dollar could be manipulated by private interests for their self-serving benefit. By this single act the people and their wealth were delivered to the bankers. When gold coinage was thus pulled out of circulation, large denomination Federal Reserve notes were issued to fill the void. As a consequence the public money supply in circulation was greatly diminished, and the debt-laden private credit of the Fed gained supremacy. This action made private individuals who had been previously exempt from federal income taxes now liable for them, since the general public began consuming and using large amounts of private credit. Notice all the case law prior to 1933 which affirms that income is a profit or gain which arises from a government granted privilege. After 1933, however, the case law no longer emphatically declares that income is exclusively corporate profit or that it arises from a privilege. So, what changed? Two years after H.J.R. 192, Congress passed the Social Security Act, which the Supreme Court upheld as a valid act imposing a valid income tax: 'Charles C. Steward Mach. Co. v, Davis' 301 U.S. 548 (1937).

It is no accident that the United States is without a dollar unit coin. In recent years the Eisenhower dollar coin received widespread acceptance, but the Treasury minted them in limited number which encouraged hoarding. This same fate befell the Kennedy half dollars, which circulated as silver sandwiched clads between 1965-1969 and were hoarded for their intrinsic value and not spent. Next came the Susan B. Anthony dollar, an awkward coin which was instantly rejected as planned. The remaining unit is the privately issued Federal Reserve note unit dollar with no viable competitors. Back in 1935 the Fed had persuaded the Treasury to discontinue minting silver dollars because the public preferred them over dollar bills. That the public money system has become awkward, discouraging its use, is no accident. It was planned that way.

A major purpose behind the 16th Amendment was to give Congress authority to enforce private law collections of revenue. Congress had the plenary power to collect income taxes arising from government granted privileges long before the 16th Amendment was ratified, and the amendment was unnecessary, except to give Congress the added power to enforce collections under private law: i.e., income from whatever source. So, the Fed got its amendment and its private income tax, which is a banker's dream but a nightmare for everyone else. Through the combined operation of the Fed and H.J.R. 192, the United States pays exorbitant interest whenever it uses its own money deposited with the Fed, and the people pay outrageous income taxes for the privilege of living and working in their own country, robbed of their wealth and separated from their rights, laboring under a tax system written by a cabal of loan shark bankers and rubber stamped by a spineless Congress.

Congress has the power to abolish the Federal Reserve System and thus destroy the private credit system. However, the people have it within their power to strip the Fed of its powers, rescind private credit and get the bankers to pay off the National Debt should Congress fail to act. The key to all this is 12 USC 411, which declares that Federal Reserve notes shall be redeemed in lawful money at any Federal Reserve bank. Lawful money is defined as all the coins, notes, bills, bonds and securities of the United States: 'Julliard v. Greenman' 110 U.S. 421, 448 (1884); whereas public money is the lawful money declared by Congress as a legal tender for debts (31 USC 5103); 524 F.2d 629 (1974). Anyone can present Federal Reserve notes to any Federal Reserve bank and demand redemption in public money -- i.e., legal tender United States notes and coins. A Federal Reserve note is a fixed obligation or evidence of indebtedness which pledges redemption (12 USC 411) in public money to the note holder. The Fed maintains a ready supply of United States notes in hundred dollar denominations for redemption purposes should it be required, and coins are available to satisfy claims for smaller amounts. However, should the general public decide to redeem large amounts of private credit for public money, a financial melt-down within the Fed would quickly occur. The process works like this. Suppose $1000 in Federal Reserve notes are presented for redemption in public money. To raise $1000 in public money the Fed must surrender U.S. Bonds in that amount to the Treasury in exchange for the public money demanded (assuming that the Fed had no public money on hand). In so doing $1000 of the National Debt would be paid off by the Fed and thus canceled. Can you imagine the result if large amounts of Federal Reserve notes were redeemed on a regular, ongoing basis? Private credit would be withdrawn from circulation and replaced with public money, and with each turning of the screw the Fed would be obliged to pay off more of the National Debt. Should the Fed refuse to redeem its notes in public money, then the fiction that private credit is used voluntarily would become unsustainable. If the use of private credit becomes compulsory, then the obligation to make a return of income is voided. If the Fed is under no obligation to redeem its notes, then no one has an obligation to make a return of income. It is that simple! Federal Reserve notes are not money and cannot be tendered when money is demanded: 105 So. 305 (1925). Moreover, the Ninth Circuit rejected the argument that a $50 Federal Reserve note be redeemed in gold or silver coin after specie coinage had been rescinded but upheld the right of the note holder to redeem his note in current public money (31 USC 392; rev., 5103): 524 F.2d 629 (1974); 12 USC 411.

It would be advantageous to close out all bank accounts, acquire a home safe, settle all debts in cash with public money and use U.S. postal money orders for remittances. Whenever a check is received, present it to the bank of issue and demand cash in public money. This will place banks in a vulnerable position, forcing them to draw off their assets. Through their insatiable greed, bankers have over extended, making banks quite illiquid. Should the people suddenly demand public money for their deposits and for checks received, many banks will collapse and be foreclosed by those demanding public money. Banks by their very nature are citadels of usury and sin, and the most patriotic service one could perform is to obligate bankers to redeem private credit. When the first Federal Reserve note is presented to the Fed for redemption, the process of ousting the private credit system will commence and will not end until the Fed and the banking system nurtured by it collapse. Coins comprise less than five percent of the currency, and current law limits the amount of United States notes in circulation to $300 million (31 USC 5115). The private credit system is exceedingly over extended compared with the supply of public money, and a small minority working in concert can easily collapse the private credit system and oust the Fed by demanding redemption of private credit. If the Fed disappeared tomorrow, income taxes on wages and salaries would vanish with it. Moreover, the States are precluded from taxing United States notes: 4 Wheat. 316. According to Bouvier, public money is the money which Congress can tax for public purposes mandated by the Constitution. Private credit when collected in revenue can fund programs and be spent for purposes not cognizable by the Constitution. We have in effect two competing governments: the United States Government and the Federal Government. The first is the government of the people, whereas the Federal Government is founded upon private law and funded by private credit. What we really have is private government. Federal agencies and activities funded by the private credit system include Social Security, bail out loans to bankers via the IMF, bail out loans to Chrysler, loans to students, FDIC, FBI, supporting the U.N., foreign aid, funding undeclared wars, etc., all of which would be unsustainable if funded by taxes raised pursuant to the Constitution. The personal income tax is not a true tax but rather an obligation or burden which is voluntarily assumed, since revenue is raised through voluntary contributions and can be spent for purposes unknown to the Constitution. Notice how the IRS declares in its publications that everyone is expected to contribute his fair share. True taxes must be spent for public purposes which the Constitution recognizes. Taxation for the purpose of giving or loaning money to private business enterprises and individuals is illegal: 15 Am.Rep. 39; Cooley, 'Prin. Const. Law', ch. IV. Revenue derived from the federal income tax goes into a private slush fund raised from voluntary contributions, and Congress is not restricted by the Constitution when spending or disbursing the proceeds from this private fund. It is incorrect to say that the personal federal income tax is unconstitutional, since the tax code is private law and resides outside the Constitution. The Internal Revenue Code is non-constitutional because it enforces an obligation which is voluntarily incurred through an act of the individual who binds himself. Fighting the Internal Revenue Code on constitutional grounds is wasted energy. The way to bring it all down is to attack the Federal Reserve System and its banking cohorts by demanding that private credit be redeemed, or by convincing Congress to abolish the Fed. Never forget that private credit is funding the destruction of our country. [Reprinted from `Freedom League', Sept/Oct 1984]

[Pottapaug1938]

Within the last piece of garbage from Mr. Van Pelt is the following:

"It is no accident that the United States is without a dollar unit coin. In recent years the Eisenhower dollar coin received widespread acceptance, but the Treasury minted them in limited number which encouraged hoarding. This same fate befell the Kennedy half dollars, which circulated as silver sandwiched clads between 1965-1969 and were hoarded for their intrinsic value and not spent. Next came the Susan B. Anthony dollar, an awkward coin which was instantly rejected as planned. The remaining unit is the privately issued Federal Reserve note unit dollar with no viable competitors. Back in 1935 the Fed had persuaded the Treasury to discontinue minting silver dollars because the public preferred them over dollar bills. That the public money system has become awkward, discouraging its use, is no accident. It was planned that way."

Only the knowledge that Van Pelt suffers from a mental impairment prevents me from responding to his idiocy as I am sorely tempted to do, so I'll confine myself to this: as a beginning 7-year-old coin collector in 1959, I read my father's copy of the "Whitman Red Book" from cover to cover. Among the things I learned is that the cessation of mintage of silver dollars had absolutely nothing to do with the Federal Reserve wanting people to use dollar bills over silver dollars -- rather, it was because there was no law authorizing the further purchase of bullion with which to mint them (which was why there are no silver dollars from 1873-77 and from 1905-1920). The fact that the only dollar bills in circulation, in 1935, were silver certificates (the first $1 FRN didn't appear until 1963) further proves the fallacy of this statement.

Another reason why silver dollars were not minted after 1935 is that, as the Red Book points out, most people in the north and east actively disliked them due to their size and weight. This is why the Eisenhower dollar was never successful, despite high mintages -- people didn't want the things clanking around in their pockets. They were hoarded only because the American public likes to hoard unfamiliar coins in the belief that they will be "worth money someday" -- which is why you see so many high-grade 50-state quarters in circulation today -- people eventually realized that they WON'T ever be very numismatically valuable, because there are so many of them, and started spending them.

As for Kennedy half dollars, they were 90% silver in 1964, and 40% silver from 1965-70. They were hoarded because the price of silver was going to rise to the point where the silver in the coins was worh more than face value -- which is why every country in the world had dropped silver from its circulating coinage by 1970.There were plenty of these coins minted; and it was because these coins were immediately hoarded for their bullion value that the clad version was created in 1971. The reason why we don't see half dollars in circulation comes from the initial hoarding of Kennedy halves for souvenirs, after they were first issued; and this, plus the perception that half dollars are "worth money" caused them to disappear from circulation by the late 1960s. Now, the half dollar slot in cash registers usually holds rolled coin or dollar bill bands (which is why we don't see $2 bills either).

The new dollar coin was supposed to be 11-sided; but whining from the vending machine industry forced the switch to a round design with an 11-sided internal rim. The rejection of this coin was planned; but due to the idiocy of the vending machine companies (other countries do just fine with multi-sided coins), the coin was an abomination. The new gold-colored dollar is no better, since it is still too close in size to the quarter; and besides, as long as we still print paper dollars, people will always prefer the bills over the coins (in Canada, though, the smallest bill is the $5. $1 and $2 coins circulate freely; and I've never had the slightest problem with them when I'm up north -- partly because the "loonie" is 12-sided, and the "toonie" has interrupted reeding, so that I can identify and distinguish them easily by touch). Too often, if I try to offer dollar coins in payment, since I like using them, people say something like "eeeew -- don't you have bills?" We will never see a circulating dollar coin, in the U.S., until we follow the example of other countries and drop our lowest denomination paper currency and let the $2 take over(the switch to coins will save a ton of tax money, too).

Once again, Van Pelt, you have completely wasted our time. You do nothing BUT waste our time, or give us something to laugh at.

[The Operative]

"It is no accident that the United States is without a dollar unit coin."

The U.S. Mint currently produces three series of $1 coins.
Dollar coins

[Imalawman]

Instead, go get admitted to an accredited college or university. Major in accounting. After about four years, earn an accounting degree. See if you can hack that.

If I am not mistaken, most states have moved to the 150 semester credit hour rule. While many states allow a person to sit for the CPA exam with only 120 credit hours (the standard four year degree) and specific requirements for accounting courses and business, in order to get licensed, a person needs 150 semester credit hours.

And in my state, you must also practice as an accountant for a year after passing the exam - [Gripe] which they define as anything done in an accounting firm, but if you do the same exact thing in a law firm it doesn't count. Bastards...I don't need another set of initials so bad that I'll practice in an accounting firm for year. I think that rule really sucks. [/Gripe]

[David Merrill]

Actually the article is quite edifying, considering when it was written. - In 1984 there would not have been much conscious thought given to the US notes being only "circulated" within the Fed Banks. So the author of course focused more on coins as lawful money. Also Title 31 was just re-enacted into positive law to allow the discripancy between the dollar and the FRN.

In 1971 the Treasury took the US notes out of circulation due to lack of interest in redeeming lawful money. With nobody redeeming lawful money there was no point in replacing the US notes as people wore them out. So they do not release them into circulation. They never got rid of US notes - they cannot.


Look at the bottom paragraph.

[Joe Dirt]

Yeah, speaking of rules that suck in NC, they also require live attendance for CPE credits at a minimum of 8 per year. The rest of the known universe accepts correspondence credits as long as the provider is accredited by the state.

[Pottapaug1938]

Actually the article is quite edifying, considering when it was written. - In 1984 there would not have been much conscious thought given to the US notes being only "circulated" within the Fed Banks. So the author of course focused more on coins as lawful money. Also Title 31 was just re-enacted into positive law to allow the discripancy between the dollar and the FRN.

In 1971 the Treasury took the US notes out of circulation due to lack of interest in redeeming lawful money. With nobody redeeming lawful money there was no point in replacing the US notes as people wore them out. So they do not release them into circulation. They never got rid of US notes - they cannot.


Look at the bottom paragraph.

I have no interest in looking at any of your so-called evidence -- like a stopped clock, when you're right about something it's a mere coincidence. If you actually knew anything about our monetary system, you would know that United States notes, which I remember seeing as a kid (and were still around when you were little), no longer circulate because they serve no useful function which cannot be performed by a FRN. There is no sense in maintaining a special set of printing presses to produce them, so the government stopped printing them -- it's as simple as that. Your "redeeming lawful money" fantasy -- as usual -- is irrelevant and unrelated to the facts.

BTW -- United States notes are still legal tender. Sometimes, I acquire a stock of worn ones, at face value, from a coin dealer, and have fun spending them. I also do these with silver certificates.

[Joe Dirt]

The core fact that David consistently ignores is the recognition of income. He's stuck on the belief that his "remedy" changes the character of the underlying transaction. I could be paid in chickens, pigs and goats for services rendered AND notwithstanding, will have recognized income on the receipt of the livestock.

Whether I fry the chicken, barbecue the pig or let David bugger the goat does not change the fact that acceptance of this livestock in exchange for services is earned income. I could even take the livestock to an auction and redeem for lawful money (sell it).

[The Operative]

So they do not release them into circulation. They never got rid of US notes - they cannot.

Look at the bottom paragraph.

The bottom paragraph only states that none have been placed in circulation since 1971. That does not support DMVP's contention that they cannot get rid of U.S. notes. Again, DMVP adds his fantasy into the plain meaning of a paragraph.

31 USC 5119 directly contradicts DMVP's contention that they cannot get rid of US notes. That section states that once United States currency notes are redeemed by the Treasury that the currency is to be canceled and destroyed. The Treasury shall not be required to reissue United States currency notes upon redemption.

[David Merrill]

The core fact that David consistently ignores is the recognition of income. He's stuck on the belief that his "remedy" changes the character of the underlying transaction. I could be paid in chickens, pigs and goats for services rendered AND notwithstanding, will have recognized income on the receipt of the livestock.

Whether I fry the chicken, barbecue the pig or let David bugger the goat does not change the fact that acceptance of this livestock in exchange for services is earned income. I could even take the livestock to an auction and redeem for lawful money (sell it).

Federal Reserve notes are redeemable in lawful money while US notes shall be lawful money. There is a basic grammatical difference between the two that stands up to scrutiny.

I think it was that bozo Gregg who was telling me that the Fed stabilizes banks from going asunder every bank run. Well, bank runs are caused by fractional lending practices and The Operative was pointing out how fractional lending, reserve banking, is just the way it is. Incorrect.

The US could not go into reserve banking because it is blatantly dishonest. The reason for bank runs is that there are not as much reserves as notes. It is helpful to read George LIPPARD's book, New York; The Upper Ten and the Lower Million. This fellow wrote in the 1840's when the bankers would fold every bank run and take all the profits and open up the next week again.



The US went to fiat currency but kept US notes inelastic. To this day nobody can keep them in reserve. In 1913 the government approved reserve lending in America but until 1933 that was only for internal banking notes, like the Operative points out - Federal Reserve notes. In 1933 all these notes were due to be redeemed because the charters for the Fed banks were expiring and instead of this pre-designed bank run, FDR declared a bankers' holiday and made contracting (endorsement) with the Fed available to the general public with HJR-192.

Put quite plainly the solution is not to legalize fractional lending. The solution is to get out of it and that is available remedy. It has to be.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Pottapaug1938]

[quote="David Merrill"]

Put quite plainly the solution is not to legalize fractional lending. The solution is to get out of it and that is available remedy. It has to be.

"It has to be" because you so fervently wish it to be so (the Third Great Premise of Idiot America), even though is isn't.