A Recipe for Awful Money -- LOCKED

[notorial dissent]

And here all this time I thought it was a mutagenic and going to turn us all in to three headed zombies, well gosh darn...

[grixit]

Yes, but, show me the law that says three headed mutants have to pay taxes!

[JamesVincent]

Oh, you said three headed....

[Famspear]

This would be a lot to handle.....

[Pottapaug1938]

PLEEEEEEEASE tell me that the photo has been Photoshopped....

WHEW!!!!

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/ ... sed-675432

[Gregg]

Actually, there's a Douglas Adams reference there

[Arthur Rubin]

Actually, there's a Douglas Adams reference there

Yes, planet 6, wasn't it?

[Thule]

Actually, there's a Douglas Adams reference there

Yes, planet 6, wasn't it?

Eroticon 6, to be precise.

[Patriotdiscussions]

Current national debt is about $17.8 trillion

Actually, ignoring the non-public debt of about 5 trillion (Social Security, Medicare and various other meaningless "trust-fund" bookkeeping entries) the net national debt held by the public (all non-US government entities) is about 12.75 trillion.

That amount will be much easier for Van Pelt to retire. Surely, he can do it in a week or two.

While I do not agree that tax liability comes from frn's and the use of them. I do have to say your numbers are way off.

Debt in this country is out of control.

Fed debt is 17 trillion
Personal debt is 16 trillion
Unfunded fed liabilities range from 50-100 trillion
All pensions for state and fed are 30-60% underfunded
Who can even guess at the trillions that state and local governments owe.

And this of course leaves out corporate debt.

Anyone who has looked at our growth of debt since the 70's and understands exponential growth understands this fiat currency ends like all the rest did, no crystal ball needed.

[Patriotdiscussions]

So let me ask, is the path of exponential growth of debt and interest what is needed and will not adversely affect us in any way?

Returning to the lawful money thing, is it your guys thoughts that frn's can not be exchanged for lawful money? If not why the last sentence in 411?

Also I remember a tax case from your tax protester FAQ that stated while the defendant could not get metal, he could redeem his notes.

[notorial dissent]

12 USC 411 is archaic law, and is modernly meaningless as it refers to a variety of Federal Reserve Note no longer being issued.

Your question/statement is meaningless, since Federal Reserve Notes, the modern ones, the ones in circulation, are, by law, legal tender/lawful money.

If you want to "redeem" your FRN's, which is another term for exchange, you are certainly welcome to "redeem" them for other FRN's of same or different denomination, or coins, etc.

[Patriotdiscussions]

12 USC 411 is archaic law, and is modernly meaningless as it refers to a variety of Federal Reserve Note no longer being issued.

Your question/statement is meaningless, since Federal Reserve Notes, the modern ones, the ones in circulation, are, by law, legal tender/lawful money.

If you want to "redeem" your FRN's, which is another term for exchange, you are certainly welcome to "redeem" them for other FRN's of same or different denomination, or coins, etc.

1. What variety were they and any source to back it up with?

2. Legal tender and lawful money are not the same thing, either back then or now. Clearly no matter how old the law is frn's were not lawful money. Did going off the gold window in the 70's change them into lawful money? Any source that agrees with this thinking?

3. Sweet you understand what redeem means. Tell me, what does exchange promissory notes for credits mean? Does exchange mean loan?

[Famspear]

12 USC 411 is archaic law, and is modernly meaningless as it refers to a variety of Federal Reserve Note no longer being issued.

Your question/statement is meaningless, since Federal Reserve Notes, the modern ones, the ones in circulation, are, by law, legal tender/lawful money.

If you want to "redeem" your FRN's, which is another term for exchange, you are certainly welcome to "redeem" them for other FRN's of same or different denomination, or coins, etc.

1. What variety were they and any source to back it up with?

A better question is: Do you think that money needs "something to back it up"? If I hire you to do work for me, and I agree to pay you $100,000 a year in Federal Reserve notes (not checks, not direct deposit to your checking account, but actual, physical Federal Reserve notes), would you agree to do the work?

If you believe your house is worth $250,000, and the appraisers value your house at $250,000, and you want to sell for that amount, and you find a buyer who expresses an interest in paying you $250,000 for the house, does the buyer ask "What source backs up the value of this house?"?

Why would an asset (whether it's money or a house or a dining room table or a tractor or a Mercedes Benz) need some other asset to "back up" its value?

2. Legal tender and lawful money are not the same thing, either back then or now.

That's actually correct, but I wonder whether you know what the term "lawful money" means as that term is used in the law. What do you think the term "lawful money" means? What exactly is the difference between "legal tender" and "lawful money"?

[Famspear]

Post script: Dear "Patriotdiscussions": After you answer my questions, then you might get an answer to the rest of your questions (i.e., "what does exchange promissory notes for credits mean?" and "Does exchange mean loan?").

[AndyK]

3. Sweet you understand what redeem means. Tell me, what does exchange promissory notes for credits mean?

What it means is that you've spent too much time reading the work of David Merrill or one of his apostles.

If you intend to rely on ANY of David Merrill's work or theories, you should do some serious research into him and his background.

[notorial dissent]

1. What variety were they and any source to back it up with?
Research and reading comprehension, try it for giggles, if you know how. A little understanding of Fed history might help, but your ignorance is your problem not mine. I'm not your unpaid research assistant. Don't like the answer, tough, go find something different from a valid source, hint: Merrill isn't and never will be one.

2. Legal tender and lawful money are not the same thing, either back then or now. Clearly no matter how old the law is frn's were not lawful money. Did going off the gold window in the 70's change them into lawful money? Any source that agrees with this thinking?
Oh, according to who? No real source, and more importantly the courts disagree with you, and I'll quite happily take their word for it, since they are by definition, right.

3. Sweet you understand what redeem means. Tell me, what does exchange promissory notes for credits mean? Nothing in the real world. In cloud cuckoo land a fantasy having nothing to do with reality or real financial transactions. Does exchange mean loan? Generally NO, but depends on that thing you don't understand, context.

[Pottapaug1938]

When FRNs first made their appearance, they joined gold and silver certificates, National Currency, Federal Reserve Bank Notes and United States Notes in circulation. The first of these ceased to be legal tender or valid for exchange for gold in 1933; the second of these are still legal tender but no longer entitle the bearer to one dollar in silver; and the last three are obsolete since any function which they once had are now performed by FRNs.

David Merrill and friends are under the delusion that, once you maker a demand for lawful money under 12 USC 411, your FRNs transubstantiate into United States Notes and, among other things, are no longer taxable under the income tax laws. To give but one example of how idiotic David and his minions are, they believe that the words "In God We Trust", appearing on FRNs, establishes some sort of legal trust (and if you want an explanation, go to his site. I've had enough of his brand of idiocy).

[Patriotdiscussions]

12 USC 411 is archaic law, and is modernly meaningless as it refers to a variety of Federal Reserve Note no longer being issued.

Your question/statement is meaningless, since Federal Reserve Notes, the modern ones, the ones in circulation, are, by law, legal tender/lawful money.

If you want to "redeem" your FRN's, which is another term for exchange, you are certainly welcome to "redeem" them for other FRN's of same or different denomination, or coins, etc.

1. What variety were they and any source to back it up with?

A better question is: Do you think that money needs "something to back it up"? If I hire you to do work for me, and I agree to pay you $100,000 a year in Federal Reserve notes (not checks, not direct deposit to your checking account, but actual, physical Federal Reserve notes), would you agree to do the work?

If you believe your house is worth $250,000, and the appraisers value your house at $250,000, and you want to sell for that amount, and you find a buyer who expresses an interest in paying you $250,000 for the house, does the buyer ask "What source backs up the value of this house?"?

Why would an asset (whether it's money or a house or a dining room table or a tractor or a Mercedes Benz) need some other asset to "back up" its value?

2. Legal tender and lawful money are not the same thing, either back then or now.

That's actually correct, but I wonder whether you know what the term "lawful money" means as that term is used in the law. What do you think the term "lawful money" means? What exactly is the difference between "legal tender" and "lawful money"?

According to every economical principal known to man...... Yes. You know the rhyme right? Money is a matter of a function of four...... You finish the rest and then explain how fiat debt notes fill the definition of money.


2. http://static.safehaven.com/pdfs/gnazzo_20091102.pdf

Is a good enough write up on the difference.

[Pottapaug1938]

2. http://static.safehaven.com/pdfs/gnazzo_20091102.pdf

Is a good enough write up on the difference.

Three quick flaws come to mind, plus one observation.

First of all, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution says that Congress has the power "to coin Money, regulate the Value thereof...." Whether or not you agree with the methods or the result, this is what Congress has done as far as our current monetary system is concerned.

Secondly, the "prohibition" clause of Article I, Section 10 says "no State".... This is because coining money had been a common activity of states under the Articles of Copnfederation, and Congress wanted to provide for a uniform medium of exchange throughout the United States. To put it another way : no state can make anything other than gold and silver a legal tender; but Congress can and has; and the Supremacy Clause means that the Constitution prevails over contrary state laws.

Third: the fact that today's bullion coins have a nominal face value (as do the bullion coins of other nations) takes them legally out of the realm of pure bullion (such as the bullion bars you might buy at your local coin shop) and makes them coins, since they are legal tender.

And, the observation: when you get right down to it, gold and silver no more have intrinsic value than any other commodity does -- they are simply commonly recognized as a store of value. Being a commodity, then, they are subject to fluctuations in price -- and manipulations of that price. If, say, the country of Pithwackistan wants to destabilize the world's gold-based currency, all they need to do is conceal that, within their borders is the richest gold mine in the history of Earth -- and then dump their bullion on the world market. If, on the other hand, demand for gold suddenly rises, too many people chasing a finite supply of gold can drastically inflate the spot price.

There's also the fact that, despite the existence of a monetary system built on gold for most of our history, there have been economic panics, recessions and outright depressions from time to time; and more than one person has suggested that, by trying to maintain the gold standard from 1929-33, the US government turned recession into depression, and that countries which abandoned the gold standard before we did suffered a depression which was less severe than ours. At any rate: the premise that a "hard money" system based on gold and/or silver is a panacea for economic ills is nothing more than a politically palatable fantasy.

[Famspear]

According to every economical principal known to man...... Yes. You know the rhyme right? Money is a matter of a function of four...... You finish the rest and then explain how fiat debt notes fill the definition of money.


2. http://static.safehaven.com/pdfs/gnazzo_20091102.pdf

Is a good enough write up on the difference.

No. No more evasions, kiddo.

I'm not here to "finish the rest." I'm the teacher; you're the uneducated one.

You've been posting question after question in various threads at this web site. You get frustrated when others don't answer your questions, and you get frustrated when others don't take you seriously.

Too bad.

I'm asking the questions now.

If you answer my questions, then perhaps we'll move on.

The goal posts are staying where they are.