Practical Advice For Newbies II

[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.

Good thing federal judges and soforth - learned in the law make that decision about redemption of lawful money - not you.

In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money.

and

United States notes shall be lawful money, and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States, except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt.

You are the member who wants verifiable court cases. There you go!

[Pottapaug1938]

Good thing federal judges and soforth - learned in the law make that decision about redemption of lawful money - not you.

Yeah, but I look at what the judges say, and what I have learned in 50+ years of collecting coins (some of which I spent learning from nationally prominent coin and currency experts).

In the exercise of that power Congress has declared that Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender and are redeemable in lawful money.

and

United States notes shall be lawful money, and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, within the United States, except for duties on imports and interest on the public debt.

You are the member who wants verifiable court cases. There you go!

No, there I DON'T go. Once again, you have proved NOTHING. You have only repeated prior assertions of yours, which are significant only to word-games players. Other Quatloosers and I have repeatedly explained to you what "redeemable in lawful money" means (essentially, today, you can "redeem" your FRNs by taking them to any bank and getting coins or new FRNs for them, since they, and all US currency except for Gold Certificates, are still legal tender); but you refuse to listen. Your United States Note quote repeats the old Legal Tender clause on the early US Notes; but if you look at the last issued (try Series 1963), US Notes are legal tender for all debts, public and private.

Besides, this wasn't the type of proof I was looking for. I'm looking for a court case involving YOU, or someone using your idiotic redemption and remedy theories. I won't get it, though, because you're too gutless to admit that you just don't have one.

[David Merrill]

The judge says something that is quite coherent with the law and Congress. Congress says that FRNs shall be redeemable in lawful money on demand.

So why would I accept your interpretation of Congress/law over the Court's? I think some Internet voice with a funny name like yours is really not the way to go here.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[grixit]

Personally, i like the sackies. And yeah, if they were polygonal they'd be more convenient, but i use them as i get them just fine, minus the few i keep on my desk to play with.

[Pottapaug1938]

The judge says something that is quite coherent with the law and Congress. Congress says that FRNs shall be redeemable in lawful money on demand.

So why would I accept your interpretation of Congress/law over the Court's? I think some Internet voice with a funny name like yours is really not the way to go here.

Regards,

David Merrill.

For starters, David, you make the typical ignoramus legal scholar's mistake of taking a single phrase from a court opinion, and investing it with stand-alone meaning like a Biblical scholar invests a quote from the Bible. You keep on ignoring -- wilfully, I have to believe -- the fact that lawful money is whatever Congress says it is -- which, today, consists of FRNs, other currency except gold certificates, and U.S. coins except for Trade Dollars from 1873-1885. If I had the time to waste on your idiocies, I could put together one helluva legal memo on the subject; but I have better things to do. Trying to convince someone who is incapable of seeing a viewpoint other than his own, and which does not fit in with his preconceived legal misreadings, is futile, so I won't attempt it.

As for my screen name -- if I went to Colorado, I'll bet I can find funny local names out your way as well. Check out this link:

http://historical.mytopo.com/quadlist.c ... &town=Dana

... and you'll see where I got mine. Don't forget to click on the link giving you the modern view of the area, so you can see what happened to the original Pottapaug Pond....

At any rate, I'd rather have a funny screen name and talk sense, in contrast to you who has a normal screen name and wastes Quatlooser time with nonsense which is funny only in small doses. Laughing at you, though, is like laughing at the kid I knew, growing up, who was mentally unbalanced. It just stopped being fun, and began to feel cruel, so we all stopped it once we grew up enough to understand that fact.

[Brandybuck]

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.

Absolute rubbish! In the prior two sentences you were talking about factional reserve banking. Apparently you do not understand what that means! When you borrow money, the bank loans you money based on a system of fractional reserves. Alfred deposits $10,000 in the bank, which lends $9,000 of it to Benjamin, keeping $1,000 in reserves. Benjamin then goes and pays $9,000 to Charlie for services, who deposits it in his bank, which then lends out $8,100 to David keeping $900 in reserves. And so and and so on. Eventually that $10,000 deposit becomes $100,000 of circulating money.

None of this money was created based on your signature! It was created based on your deposit!

[The Operative]

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.

Absolute rubbish! In the prior two sentences you were talking about factional reserve banking. Apparently you do not understand what that means! When you borrow money, the bank loans you money based on a system of fractional reserves. Alfred deposits $10,000 in the bank, which lends $9,000 of it to Benjamin, keeping $1,000 in reserves. Benjamin then goes and pays $9,000 to Charlie for services, who deposits it in his bank, which then lends out $8,100 to David keeping $900 in reserves. And so and and so on. Eventually that $10,000 deposit becomes $100,000 of circulating money.

None of this money was created based on your signature! It was created based on your deposit!

Harvester and DMVP are desperately attempting to teach us on a subject that they know nothing about. They are convinced that they "know" how it all works. DMVP seems to think an article he quotes from 1984 is important. I tried to read the article in his post, but I stopped after I found the first erroneous statement. In other words, I stopped reading it as soon as I finished the first sentence.

[Pottapaug1938]

I remember reading a funny thing about United States Notes. In 1966, an issue of $100 USNs was printed (Series 1966), and some made it into circulation. I've seen more than a few. Howver, the vast majority of them remained in vaults, unissued; and some years later someone came up with the idea of moving the pallets of unissued notes from one part of the vault to another. The idea was for these notes to be thus considered to be "in circulation", although they were never issued.

I don't know if these USNs still exist; but if they do, the government could make a nice bundle of money by selling them to the general public.

[Demosthenes]

Why are you guys feeding the trolls?

[Joe Dirt]

Why are you guys feeding the trolls?

Which one??

[silversopp]

These two reasons alone make it a given that there is going to be some sort of Federal Bank to handles these needs, even if you take away its role in monetary policy.

I think that most, if not all, anti FED folks aren't aware that it does things other than manipulate monetary policy. You might be able to privatize those other functions and bring competition into that market, but I've never seen any anti-FED folks describe what that would look like. It seems that they just want to get rid of the FED and replace it with nothing - which doesn't make much sense.

[Pottapaug1938]

These two reasons alone make it a given that there is going to be some sort of Federal Bank to handles these needs, even if you take away its role in monetary policy.

I think that most, if not all, anti FED folks aren't aware that it does things other than manipulate monetary policy. You might be able to privatize those other functions and bring competition into that market, but I've never seen any anti-FED folks describe what that would look like. It seems that they just want to get rid of the FED and replace it with nothing - which doesn't make much sense.

What's really hilarious is that the anti-Fed crowd raves about privatization and deregulation as if it will bring in the New, Wonderful Millennium all by itself. Gee -- in the last 30 years, I've seen more than a few cases where privatization and deregulation have led to an abuse or two... thousand or so by those who treat the banking system as a personal piggy bank....

[Joe Dirt]

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.

I know that by Quatloos standards it's inelegant to quote a WIKI, but, here's what the entry for the novelist George Lippard has to say:

Lippard achieved substantial commercial success in his lifetime by purposely targeting a young working-class readership by using sensationalism, violence, and social criticism.[12] Lippard acknowledged the influence of Charles Brockden Brown (1771–1810) on his writing and dedicated several books to him.

Lippard's writing has occasional glimmers of style, but his words are more memorable for quantity than for quality, and his writing for its financial success than for its literary style. He proved that one could make a living by wordsmithing. If he is remembered at all today, it is more for his social thinking, which was progressive, than for his language and literary style.

Nonetheless, years after Lippard's death, Mark Twain mentioned him in a letter to home. During the short time Twain spent in Philadelphia working for The Philadelphia Inquirer, he wrote: "Unlike New York, I like this Philadelphia amazingly, and the people in it . . . . I saw small steamboats, with their signs up--"For Wissahickon and Manayunk 25 cents." Geo. Lippard, in his Legends of Washington and his Generals, has rendered the Wissahickon sacred in my eyes, and I shall make that trip, as well as one to Germantown, soon . . . ."

Many of Lippard's fictions were received as historical fact. Probably the most famous person to quote a historical romance by George Lippard as though it were actual history is the late President Ronald Reagan, in a commencement address at Eureka College on June 7, 1957.[citation needed] Reagan quoted from George Lippard's "Speech of the Unknown" in Washington and His Generals: or, Legends of the Revolution (1847), which relates how a speech by an anonymous delegate was the final motivation that spurred delegates to sign the Declaration of Independence in 1776.

After Lippard became successful as a novelist, he tried to use popular literature as a vehicle for social reform.

[bmielke]

Why are you guys feeding the trolls?

It's all fun and games until a troll bites your hand, then it gets all infected and everything.

[Lambkin]

Why are you guys feeding the trolls?

Amen, sister. My fellow Quatloosians, quit giving these self-righteous lying lunatics a hand-job. They lack the capacity to reason and the discussion has run its course. You gave it a good effort but they are committed to life-long failure.

[Lambkin]

Why are you guys feeding the trolls?

Amen, sister. My fellow Quatloosians, quit giving these self-righteous lying lunatics a hand-job. They lack the capacity to reason and the discussion has run its course. You gave it a good effort but they are committed to life-long failure.

Remember this though, there are probably a fair number of others, both members and non-members who read without posting and might like to learn a thing or two.

I have them well in mind and I still think the discussion has run its course. Are you planning to go round in circles forever? Anyone influenced by reason will have already seen that the current pair of buffoons are life-long losers, and the others can be damned.

[Gregg]

These two reasons alone make it a given that there is going to be some sort of Federal Bank to handles these needs, even if you take away its role in monetary policy.

I think that most, if not all, anti FED folks aren't aware that it does things other than manipulate monetary policy. You might be able to privatize those other functions and bring competition into that market, but I've never seen any anti-FED folks describe what that would look like. It seems that they just want to get rid of the FED and replace it with nothing - which doesn't make much sense.

What's really hilarious is that the anti-Fed crowd raves about privatization and deregulation as if it will bring in the New, Wonderful Millennium all by itself. Gee -- in the last 30 years, I've seen more than a few cases where privatization and deregulation have led to an abuse or two... thousand or so by those who treat the banking system as a personal piggy bank....

Just ask Grey Davis about getting rid of this evil electric company monopolies....

[Brandybuck]

I think that most, if not all, anti FED folks aren't aware that it does things other than manipulate monetary policy. You might be able to privatize those other functions and bring competition into that market, but I've never seen any anti-FED folks describe what that would look like. It seems that they just want to get rid of the FED and replace it with nothing - which doesn't make much sense.

While is true that most most anti-Fed folks base their entire knowledge on the book "End the Fed", it is not true that they comprise the whole of anti-Fed folk. I happen to be an anti-Fed guy, but I try to stay away from the polemicists who are short on economics and long on anger. There are necessary functions the Fed provides, but I have seen no reason why they need to be centralized in the hands of a monopoly. I'm not arguing for an instant overnight change in systems (which of course would be disastrous), but sticking your head in the sand like there's nothing wrong with the Fed is silly.

I'm an advocate of free banking, and would chip away the Fed's centralized monopoly until we are left with a system of decentralized banks with only a level of regulation sufficient to protect the consumer against theft and fraud. I do realize, however, that I am advocating something that is very radical, and that nearly everyone else in the world disagrees.

[Joe Dirt]

For me, this isn't "troll feeding". It's watching and discerning how people think. You will notice that I have been on this board since March 2004 yet I don't have a high post count. This is because I don't have all too much wisdom to contribute for the benefit of the wise, nor do I have the attention and patience to suffer the fools.

My original CPA certification is from New York dated March 1982. For twenty years I never encountered protestors, sovereign citizens or any of the myriad of idiots that bring plates of shit to the table and try to say that they contain delicacies.

Since setting up shop in southeastern NC I have been in situations where I need to debunk the "true believers" and work to the best of my own modest ability to get the returns filed and prove that working hard and paying a fair share of taxes is the small price to pay for the benefits that our society gives.

Quatloos has been an immense help to me in my efforts to guide clients and friends to stay on the "straight and narrow".

[.]

My original CPA certification is from New York dated March 1982. For twenty years I never encountered protestors, sovereign citizens or any of the myriad of idiots that bring plates of sh*t to the table and try to say that they contain delicacies.

I first encountered a few TP-types and miscellaneous other assorted whack-jobs in 1979-80 at metal investor/hard-money conferences (I was an exhibitor.) Schiff was usually a speaker and there were a usually a few book dealers peddling his and other conspiracy garbage (along with many legitimate books on banking, money and investing.) Employees would sometimes ask what the deal was with Schiff and my answer was always that he's full of it and to ignore him and anyone else who believes or spouts his BS.

After decades of circulating in a fairly small and mostly closed loop, there's no doubt that the internet has enabled the rapid spread of nutjobbery beginning in the '90s, with exponential growth since.