Skronk wrote:I didn't make the mistake to think tender is the actual currency*, but the simple fact is, fiat is the ultimate arbitrary creation, because it's not based in the real world, besides the word of the fed. I ultimately don't care about the gold, but what the gold represents. Having something tangible as its basis would keep prices from sky rocketing. Yes, even tender based on gold is man made, but it is not transparent, and because it's not as flexible, or more accurately, less manipulatable.

But the entire "pieces of paper"/"money out of a printing" press argument that the pro-Gold people are making hinges entirely on the incorrect assumption that currency is tender, rather than a numerical expression of relative worths that would otherwise be independent.

Gold Standard is almost exactly the same, only its one commodity with one ratio, selected abitrary. Which makes it next to worthless. Doubly worthless seeing as gold no longer has the role that it used to. Triply useless considering that we now have global trading and radically different production and refining.

That you make these mistakes habitually leads me to assume that you do not understand the relationship between tender and currency, capital and worth.

Obvious, yes. But not obvious enough for you lot to quit talking about money coming out printing presses and being conjured up like loo roll, along with a bunch of other childishness and fantasy.

It wouldn't matter what your bank would do, it matters what the value of the fiat is after a change. You can still see the same amount you earned and invested, but it would be worth less.

How so? That wouldn't make any sense. I don't care about my savings, I care about my entitlements. The numbers are irrelevant.

title 31 wrote:United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts.

Look! I'm right! Again!

So what's the deal with this Ron Paul guy anyway?

Big_Dave wrote:

title 31 wrote:United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts.

Look! I'm right! Again!

See the words "including Federal Reserve notes"?

Regardless, gold, gold backed money, intrinsically worthless or not, does not fluctuate like fiat. Hard to understand?

Skronk wrote:See the words "including Federal Reserve notes"?

Yes, it is saying what can be used to as tender for civic and financial payments, not where the monetary value of currency resides.

Think of the process of writing a cheque, and what you can and can't do with a cheque.

Regardless, gold, gold backed money, intrinsically worthless or not, does not fluctuate like fiat. Hard to understand?

Yes and I like that fluctuation for the reasons listed above. Why is a fixed currency so good? Your case to prove.

It's complete circles when we talk.

big_dave wrote:

Regardless, gold, gold backed money, intrinsically worthless or not, does not fluctuate like fiat. Hard to understand?

Yes and I like that fluctuation for the reasons listed above. Why is a fixed currency so good? Your case to prove.

Two reasons, fixed currency is more stable, and it curbs inflation.

Skronk wrote:Two reasons, fixed currency is more stable

A tautology.

and it curbs inflation.

So does a bunch of stuff to varying extents with various other effects. To what extent and how reliable it does it, is the question.

Pit Bulls are really smart handsome dogs, but they love the taste of toddlers.

Skronk wrote:It's complete circles when we talk.

Because you're a contrarian. You seem to care more about disagreeing than you care about being right or wrong. Which is sorta good, I guess.

This is erroneous:

big_dave wrote:Coins and notes are not currency in themselves, they are legal tender.

And this is erroneous:

big_dave wrote:Tender is not currency.

And this is erroneous:

big_dave wrote:Yes, it is saying what can be used to as tender for legal tender during civic and financial payments, not where the monetary value of currency resides.

As a troll, you are not expected to acknowledge these errors.

Tender is based around function, currency is based around representing a value. This is basic.

The currency of the USA is Federal Reserve Notes, and the fact that the notes *are* the legal currency is what makes them legal tender.

You have it totally backwards.

Right. If I was to take your word for it for the sake of argument, the law isn't as explicit in the USA as it is in the UK and Europe (we have it written on our notes that they are "promises" of the currency, not the currency themselves). But the fact remains that the tender is not the currency, even if more value is invested in yours than ours.

That is right. We have it written on our bank notes. Find one on google, look at it.

A note is currency is legal tender. There is no place 'where the monetary value of currency resides'. You're just mumbling out drunken bullshit again. Why would the US Treasury list the portraits on the paper currency, you dope?? Maybe because it is the currency??

Drunken mumbling beats nonsensical raving.

United States currency notes now in production bear the following portraits: George Washington on the $1 bill, Thomas Jefferson on the $2 bill, Abraham Lincoln on the $5 bill, Alexander Hamilton on the $10 bill, Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill, Ulysses S. Grant on the $50 bill, and Benjamin Franklin on the $100 bill.

Currency note =/= currency. Your currency is the dollar. The "currency note", ie. the tender, is the Federal Reserve bill. So what, your country has slightly more invested in the individual value of the bills as physical objects, it still doesn't make the "bill" = "the currency". That you might find some quotes where people use "currency", "bill" and "tender" interchangably doesn't make the difference vanish. I could find something refering to oaks as trees, it doesn't mean that the two words are the same.

Sorry.

Rick Reuben wrote:

big_dave wrote:Look! I'm right! Again!

I'm calling your boss right now and telling him you won't be in on Friday. I can tell already this hangover is going to be a monster.

Today is a study day. I don't drink on study days.

big_dave wrote:

Skronk wrote:It's complete circles when we talk.

Because you're a contrarian. You seem to care more about disagreeing than you care about being right or wrong. Which is sorta good, I guess.

I don't actively set out to disagree with you, because then I'd have to take you seriously. We don't see eye to eye on most things, but my love for Welsh humor trumps my cynicism:

big_dave wrote:Pit Bulls are really smart handsome dogs, but they love the taste of toddlers.