Traktion Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 Legal tenders laws are to protect debtors. The State doesn't need the legislation to keep it's money in demand. It would appear it protects the banks, while ever they extend credit using the State currency. I assume you mean it offers protection to debtors, by stopping payment being forced in something unreasonable? If I agree to pay for a car with 2 cows, I don't see why the state needs to get involved - I need to deliver on my promise with the cows. However, if I have agreed to pay in the blood of a unicorn, but failed to do so, you could argue it was an unfair contract to begin with, which there are laws for already. Unless there is more to this than meets the eye and you can point me in the direction of a web page to help explain your point further? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 yepbut there is only one politician proposing this at the moment Is one in the UK or do you mean Ron Paul? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan B'Stard MP Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 (edited) It would appear it protects the banks, while ever they extend credit using the State currency.I assume you mean it offers protection to debtors, by stopping payment being forced in something unreasonable? If I agree to pay for a car with 2 cows, I don't see why the state needs to get involved - I need to deliver on my promise with the cows. However, if I have agreed to pay in the blood of a unicorn, but failed to do so, you could argue it was an unfair contract to begin with, which there are laws for already. Unless there is more to this than meets the eye and you can point me in the direction of a web page to help explain your point further? Banks extend credit but settle your credit with State money - so it's hardly unreasonable for them to expect it in return. If you decide to deposit that money back in the banking cartel - well that's your affair. You imply that legal tender laws create the demand for money to pay taxes in central bank money. But how can this be true when they are a litany of examples where paper is used without demands from the state - for their own issuance. Some european enclaves have the euro as legal tender without the state being the issuer. Scotland has no legal tender laws pertaining to central bank money and the judiciary will accept any fair property in payment. The Kurds have freely used redudant iraqi money despite it being out of general publication. There can be no exceptions to a stated matter of fact. Edited September 23, 2009 by Alan B'Stard MP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 Banks extend credit but settle your credit with State money - so it's hardly unreasonable for them to expect it in return. If you decide to deposit that money back in the banking cartel - well that's your affair. They extend credit by pretending to use state money, as you know. If they are owed anything at all, they are owed the cost, not the face value of their pretence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan B'Stard MP Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 (edited) They extend credit by pretending to use state money, as you know. But they settle with State liabilities are you well know. What do you think comes out of the ATM - smarties? Edited September 23, 2009 by Alan B'Stard MP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 But they settle with State liabilities are you well know. What do you think comes out of the ATM - smarties? In 97% of cases, nothing comes out of an ATM at all, as you know. And in those 3% of cases, it's soon back in the ATM and therefore still not owed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan B'Stard MP Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 (edited) In 97% of cases, nothing comes out of an ATM at all, as you know.And in those 3% of cases, it's soon back in the ATM and therefore still not owed. People have freely elected to put their money back into or leave it in the banking system. 97 / 3 is a testament to their faith. Edited September 23, 2009 by Alan B'Stard MP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 Banks extend credit but settle your credit with State money - so it's hardly unreasonable for them to expect it in return. If you decide to deposit that money back in the banking cartel - well that's your affair. Indeed - should they be allowed to extend credit using State money? If they had to use their own "bank money" floating against other currencies, would they be as reckless when it comes to lending? You imply that legal tender laws create the demand for money to pay taxes in central bank money. But how can this be true when they are a litany of examples where paper is used without demands from the state - for their own issuance. Some european enclaves have the euro as legal tender without the state being the issuer. Scotland has no legal tender laws pertaining to central bank money and the judiciary will accept any fair property in payment. The Kurds have freely used redudant iraqi money despite it being out of general publication.There can be no exceptions to a stated matter of fact. An item can be used as a money token, as long as it has perceived value with others. Brisk Euro trade happens over here in NI at the border towns. You have no argument from me there. It is tradition and trust which give any currency value, once they have been established, that is. So why have there been no other competing currencies in the UK? Probably because people think Sterling is "proper" money or some such. The banks know this and they are allowed to abuse this, extending credit in Sterling, with their losses backstopped by the tax payer. The bankers get rich, people get to keep their "money" and we are all taxed via inflation and bailouts to keep the merry-go-round moving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 People have freely elected to put their money back into or leave it in the banking system.97 / 3 is a testament to their faith. And what would the government do if we all withdrew it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan B'Stard MP Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 (edited) And what would the government do if we all withdrew it? We know what they should do. Unfortunately I don't think it is what they would do. We've yet to see it yet. Have some faith - your other depositor peers are showing some. Edited September 23, 2009 by Alan B'Stard MP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan B'Stard MP Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 Indeed - should they be allowed to extend credit using State money? If they had to use their own "bank money" floating against other currencies, would they be as reckless when it comes to lending? They don't extend credit using State money. They extend credit priced at par with State money and settle accordingly. Of course the central bank is a price fixing mechanism and is wrong. An item can be used as a money token, as long as it has perceived value with others. Brisk Euro trade happens over here in NI at the border towns. You have no argument from me there. It is tradition and trust which give any currency value, once they have been established, that is. Yes. Habit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 People have freely elected to put their money back into or leave it in the banking system.97 / 3 is a testament to their faith. Changes nothing as to what the banks are owed. Facts remain. Faith means nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 They don't extend credit using State money. They extend credit priced at par with State money and settle accordingly. Of course the central bank is a price fixing mechanism and is wrong. The extend credit by claiming that they are using state money. Really simple fraud - not that most peoples incredible guilt at being alive can let them see it. Yes. Habit. And a well cultivated facade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan B'Stard MP Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 (edited) Changes nothing as to what the banks are owed.Facts remain. Faith means nothing. Facts are irrelevant to the game of human life. You are going to die - that is a fact. Everything you do or say is of no consequence. You will return to the star dust from where you came. Of course this little fact doesn't prevent your from living your life and extending your boundaries according to the petty obstacles you are presented with. Humans are indulged in the game of life - not looking for truth over and above that that feeds their immediate comfort. Edited September 23, 2009 by Alan B'Stard MP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan B'Stard MP Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 The extend credit by claiming that they are using state money. But they release the state money when requested - which goes directly to the point made by Traktion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 Facts are irrelevant to the game of human life. Is that a fact? You are going to die - that is a fact. Everything you do or say is of no consequence. You will return to the star dust from where you came. You've just made the same error as the value brigade. We have consequence for things, things have no consequence. Of course this little fact doesn't prevent your from living your life and extending your boundaries according to the petty obstacles you are presented with. Nor does it have anything to do with the banks being owed cash or not. They aren't, as you know, and all the cod philosophy in the world won't change that fact. I do like the irony tho that apart from a few oddballs like myself, the only ones who fully appreciate just how grubby and pathetic the bankers are is the bankers themselves - hence their need to fill in the blank spots where their humanity should be with more and more all the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 But they release the state money when requested - which goes directly to the point made by Traktion. So what? An option to do something in the future isn't the fulfilment of something in the past - and doing it in the present doesn't fulfil it in the past. They aren't owed - adventures in the amgdyla and hippocampus are fun, but don't work here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowrentyieldmakessense(honest!) Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 Is one in the UK or do you mean Ron Paul? uk hasnt woken up yet and it needs to get a lot worse before people will be ready for the solution Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Number79 Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 You've just made the same error as the value brigade. We have consequence for things, things have no consequence. what error have the value brigade made? Everyone knows that gold has no real value other than that attached to it by man now, the value is perceived - but while it has a perceived value then it is in effect valueble. Ofcourse, this can change and probably will in future generations but right now.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 what error have the value brigade made? Everyone knows that gold has no real value other than that attached to it by man now, the value is perceived - but while it has a perceived value then it is in effect valueble. Ofcourse, this can change and probably will in future generations but right now.... The clue is in the phrase "store of value" - if men have values for things then objects can't "store value" and the question must really be dismissed. Also, thinking about it - those who hold gold and understand this process have then a vested interest in hiding the truth of things from others, for it will affect them materially. Not a good basis for a financial system, imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azogar Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 The clue is in the phrase "store of value" - if men have values for things then objects can't "store value" and the question must really be dismissed.Also, thinking about it - those who hold gold and understand this process have then a vested interest in hiding the truth of things from others, for it will affect them materially. Not a good basis for a financial system, imo. are you a fan of Rothbard injin? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 are you a fan of Rothbard injin? I like some of the things I've read, yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Number79 Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 The clue is in the phrase "store of value" - if men have values for things then objects can't "store value" and the question must really be dismissed. now I understand your point and again, have to agree. I suppose that more correctly gold is an alternative outside of the fiat system and direct government inteferance. It does however carry the value of todays fiat into tomorrow much better than holding actual currency - thinking long term here. So rather than gold being a store of value could it not be described as a store of todays purchasing power of fiat? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azogar Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 I like some of the things I've read, yes. I thought so; this is surprising in that you struggle so much with the concept of precious metals as money / a store of value. I tend to take a more pragmatic approach to this concept, reflecting upon what history teaches us rather than questioning the theoretical 'value' of what format future money may take. 'What Has Government Done to Our Money?' is a good read / listen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomwatkins Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 what error have the value brigade made? Everyone knows that gold has no real value other than that attached to it by man now, the value is perceived - but while it has a perceived value then it is in effect valueble. Ofcourse, this can change and probably will in future generations but right now.... Everybody assumes that the markets are not rigged and they are. Gold is no different-why should it be? Oil is rigged, NYSE/Nasdaq, Forex. Gold will go the level that the central banks want it to go. How can anybody judge the market when, as an instance the FED could, RIGHT NOW, be a huge player without anybody even knowing. They can shufflle money through the system, through fellow central banks, buy gold, sell gold, hoard gold-how would WE small time players even know? How can you beat a player who can print up as much dough as they want and instead of dropping it from helicopters, buy up every ounce available? Answers on a postcard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.