What is the most import aspect of money?

You miss the point 100% as usual. You don't need to accumulate wealth if liberals are giving you $83,000/year. Its when you are not on the dole that you need to create wealth from which to live.
There you see how easily the Picketty liberal hysteria is utterly defeated as pure nonsense!

 

the reality is there are 36 million poor while state local and federal govt spends trillions each year on them obviously from not poor people!! To say they have no wealth is beyond stupid and perfectly liberal. They in effect have huge and steady wealth as an entitlement to part of everyone else's wealth and income!

 

exactly !!! if you are protected by national defense and use the highway system etc but don't pay for them you have wealth. Try denying those and other assets to the poor and you'll see instantly how valuable that wealth is.

 

That I have a dollar or two more than I need.

What is the most import aspect of money?

 

why not call it welfare? If someone is not paying for it is part of the welfare they receive just like the cash payments they receive. Ask people in Africa if they'd feel wealthy if they had $10,000 per year per person to spend on American style health care. Can you figure out what they'd say?

 

I don't see them saying they want our style of health care.

 

so the liberal thinks if average Africans were offered $10,000 a year to purchase America health care they would refuse and make due with their normal health care? See why we have to conclude that liberalism is based in ignorance?

 

False dichotomy, Baiamonte. They are not clamoring for American health care business. Your style of political economics is simply a failure.

 

you mean East Germany really did better than West Germany and Cuba really does better than Florida and that China didn't really eliminate 40% of the world's poverty when it switched to Republican capitalism??

 

Here, Baiamonte, is the full quote: False dichotomy, Baiamonte. They are not clamoring for American health care business. Your style of political economics is simply a failure.

Your deflection is noted, it being of little worth. We are talking about the failure of American capitalism in the field of health care. Baiamonte, Germany and Cuba and China are not clamoring for American-style health care, are they?

 

Probably the most important aspect would be that you get an acceptable return for what you are spending.

 

African countries to feel worst of US health aid cuts, report says

https://www.devex.com/news/african-countries-to-feel-worst-of-us-health-aid-cuts-report-says-90210

Africans are indeed clamouring for US healthcare. As much of it as they can get.
Only they can't pay for it. Because they aren't rich like you.

 

They do not want our system. Instead of health care, it is predicated on obscene profits for the wealthy at the expense of the gravely ill and the dying. No one in the world wants our system.

 

Yes, they do want your system. They'd love it. And your road systems and your military systems and all your stuff.

No one in the advanced world wants your system, but then no one in the advanced world wants their own system either.

For the record the American system is often used as a model for foreign healthcare debates. Many people do want it.
It regularly gets debated here as an alternative model for the UK.
But we have our system. It's just as **** as anyone else's system.

The same debates you have on healthcare in your country are taking place in every other advanced economy. Japan, France, Britain. We all say the same ****. No matter what system you use, the complaints are all the same.

 

No, Baff, the industrialized world of national health care does not want our system. The want the technologies and medical know how, but they do not want the health care system.

And, no, the debate is different in the other countries. They accept that the nation is to have a national health care system. We can't over that hump here yet, but we will in the next decade.

 

Some of them want it.
Not their governments, obviously. They have a massive vested interest after all.
And certainly in this country I don't think the majority want it.

But privatising the NHS is a plenty popular political aspiration here. It's mainstream political debate.

The debate is the same, do we want a nationalised health care system?
We now have one, but the debate goes on. Some want it, some don't. Same reasons, different people, different country.

In my country the majority seem to want what they already have. A nationalised system of medical insurance, and in the US the majority seem to want what they already have, a private system of medical insurance.

Healthcare in both countries is excellent. Amongst the very best in the world.

 

The Oxford Dictionary defines money as:

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/money

This provides an accurate definition because it distinguishes between "coins" that are certified tokens made of a commodity (gold, silver, copper being the basis for coinage in the United States historically) and banknotes that are promissory notes that, under the law, are redeemable in the coinage. Our current law (U.S. Code › Title 12 › Chapter 3 › Subchapter XII › § 411) defines that redemption on demand.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/411

Federal Reserve Notes are not "Lawful Money" in the United States. Only the gold, silver, and more recently platinum (American Eagle) coins being produced by the US Mint (and their predecessors) are lawful money in the United States. Federal Reserve notes are legal tender, as are the American Eagle coins, but only the American Eagle coins are "lawful money" in the United States.

The actual "money" is the metal that the coins are made from and that "money" becomes "lawful" when the US Mint "coins" the metal into tokens that it certifies of metallic content. A Canadian Maple Leaf gold coin is "Lawful Money" in Canada but it's also "Money" in the United States. It's just not "Lawful Money" because it's not certified as "Legal Tender" for transactions in the United States. It can be used for financial transactions but it's doesn't have to be accepted under the law for financial transactions.

While many mistakenly believe that Richard Nixon removed the United States from the Gold Standard that's a mistaken belief. In 1971 Nixon broke away from the Bretton Woods trade agreement that was requiring the United States to redeem foreign debt in gold at a fixed price of $35/oz. At that time the use of gold in the United States for monetary transactions was already suspended by the Emergency Banking Act of 1933. In 1974 President Ford finally signed into law the repeal of the Emergency Banking Act putting the United States back on the Gold Standard

We can also mention that since 1977 the Gold Clause has been reinstated under US law. Any contract, by mutual consent, can be based upon payment in US minted gold coins that excludes the use of Federal Reserve Notes as a means of payment of financial obligation.

That's the legal case but there's only one serious flaw in all of this.

The United States government is not enforcing 12 U.S. Code § 411 and although we have Federal Reserve Notes in our possession you cannot take them to a Federal Reserve bank or to the US Treasury and redeem them in American Eagle (gold, silver, platinum) coins even though the laws explicitly states you can. In fact that US government has defended the non-redemption of Federal Reserve notes in federal courts and has successfully convinced the US federal courts that the redemption of a Federal Reserve (promissory) note with another promissory (that isn't money and isn't even legal tender) meets the obligation under the law.

So money, that started out as a commonly accepted commodity to facilitate the barter system, is literally being denied from us by our own government in violation of the law. Not even the states are using American Eagle gold and silver coins to pay their debts even though Article 10 of the Constitution prohibits the states from using any other method of payment. But the states hold the key to enforcement of the gold standard in the United States based upon the following provision in Article 10.

"No State shall ..... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts."

Any State Treasurer could take the tax revenue received by the state in the form of Federal Reserve notes to a Federal Reserve bank and demand redemption of the Federal Reserve notes at face (denomination) value. It would literally have to be physical Federal Reserve notes but a State Treasurer has the ability to do that. It's unlikely that the Federal Reserve would make the exchange because to do so would establish precedent that would bankrupt the Federal Reserve (and the US Treasury) because there simply isn't enough gold to redeem Federal Reserve notes at the $50/oz rate established under the Gold Bullion Coin Act of 1986.

The State Treasurer would have to file a lawsuit in the federal courts to force redemption. Because the Constitution requires the State to pay it's debts in gold and silver the federal court, the appeals court, and the US Supreme Court would be forced to side with the State Treasurer forcing the redemption. To avoid bankruptcy the Congress would have to revalue the gold and silver coinage so that the Federal Reserve and US Treasury could redeem Federal Reserve notes. Once that's done we're back on the gold standard as we should be under the US Constitution.

 

The fact is that "privatising the NHS is a plenty popular political aspiration here" in the UK is a very minority position without much political power.

The British overwhelmingly have no desire to give national health care.

 

So there are 11 sections in that subchapter, perhaps you'll quote the specific section that upholds your argument?

This says:

"Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank."[/quote]

I see nothing in there that disputes anything I've claimed.

Again, would you do me the kindness of quoting something that specifically states that?

Gold is a commodity that is universally accepted across many different nations and therefore made a good medium of exchange between countries. But in a modern world, that's no longer necessary or even possible given the shortages of gold. There is only about 5 wedding bands worth of gold for every person in the world. With the population likely to hit 9 billion by 2050, the situation will only get worse. Modern nations, especially the largest, can create and regulate their own money to meet whatever political policiy objectives it's politicians legislate.

Excellent bit of trivia. I was aware, but I agree most people don't know that.

Do you know why Nixon abandon Bretton Woods?

To my knowledge, under a mutually agreed upon contract, two or more parties can agree to trades of virtually anything that can be accurately valued. Though, the courts will only enforce the agreements in the assets defind where it's possible. When it becomes impossible, the courts can defer to US dollars.

That's the legal case but there's only one serious flaw in all of this.

Forgive me for asking you to source that directly.

It is clear the intent of the Founders was to prohibit the States from issuing paper money. It is not clear whether the same intent applied to the Congress. Wrote Breckenridge, “the clause granting to Congress the power to emit bills was stricken out, and no prohibition was laid. Silence as to that was maintained; and all that can be said as to the interpretation of that silence is that, although there was a strong and well-founded universal dread of paper issues (credit), there was a stronger dread of too narrowly limiting the powers of the new legislature; and that there was neither a very definite nor a unanimous opinion as to the effect of striking out the clause, or as to the extent of the power granted” It appears the Founders, whether intentionally or not, left the paper money issue to be settled by future generations.

The problem of bills-of-credit and other paper issues was inflation. However, that problem was solved with the power to tax. Taxes are the method a government can use to offset fears of inflation.

 

Econ4Every1..... in your opinion I am being kind of paranoid to be so concerned about all this?


http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-experience-devaluation-of-the-dollar.515180/

Are tens of millions of Americans about to experience devaluation of the dollar?

 

I'm not Econ4, but just as an observation, I'd be cautious about putting too much weight it what appears to be a fake quote you've been posting repeatedly.

Or maybe you can link to the "abovealpha" article that quote supposedly came from?

Without seeing the actual article, I don't know for sure who is writing it. But the over-use of capitalization, dubious claims ("U.S. Treasury Satellite Currency location Detection Systems"), and use of non-economic terms ("free floating currency") suggests to me that this quote was written by someone who is ignorant of the economy and macro-economics, who probably has been watching nut job internet videos as we see here so frequently.

It may be that devaluation of the dollar is a topic of concern. But not based on some supposed quote from lord knows who you apparently cribbed from the internet somewhere.

 

Post #18 right there.... is the full personal message that AA sent to me:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...weimar-republic-inflation-i-ever-read.502018/

I realize that it was kind of rude of me to do so but in my mind what AA wrote in the rest of his personal message to me had the power to put him into the office of President of the USA in the year 2024............................

I am not kidding...... I could well be wrong....... but I am NOT joking!

Very few people on the planet could do a passable job of writing like AboveAlpha...... He is in a league all his own............

Just in case you haven't seen it...... .I did try my best to get him to agree to turn me loose promoting him back in 2015......but I have to admit that 2022 or 2023 will be much easier for both of us........

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-the-office-of-potus-as-early-as-2016.397835/

Should AboveAlpha allow us to set him up for the office of POTUS as early as 2016?

 

A floating currency is an economic term (vs a fixed currency), but I would agree the context it was used in makes no macroeconomic sense.

 

Denis, the amount of currency "outside" the US is easy to figure out (called Foreign Exchange Reserves or FOREX). The reason is most of it (the digital stuff) is in the US banking system but is "owned" by foreign interests. There is also a sizeable amount of paper dollars that circulate around the world. About 80% of US $100 bills (that make up 1/2 the value of all paper bills) circulate outside the US. Many nations and organizations hold US paper as a hedge or as collateral. Having US paper is just like holding gold. It is an asset that is valuable irrespective of the economy it's held in (outside the US).

LOOK HERE

That is a list of FOREX holdings.

I'll save you the time, that amounts to about $10 trillion dollars.

As far as the devaluation of the dollar.

Remember that (in a slight oversimplification) value=demand/ supply.

That goes for goods and services and for the currency that is used to purchase them.

If there is significant devaluation that means that there has either been a decrease in the supply of goods and services (relative to supply) or an increase in the supply of dollars relitive to the supply of goods.

However, it's a lot more complex than that, because an increase in dollars can, in some circumstances foster an increase in supply.

Think of it like this:


An increase in money that creates an increase in supply can offset. If they offset, that is, there is an increase in demand but also an equal increase in supply, value remains the same.

It's only when the real resources or labor (or something that affects the supply of either) run short, that there is a real problem. That is, when demand exceeds supply, or money is created and used to pay foreign debts or to purchase foreign goods that the money stock increases without a net increase in supply (again, highly oversimplified - looking at you Irmon

If the nations holding Trillions of US dollars were to swap for some other currency, first you have to find a nation of the world that could supply it. You'd need a massive import based economy. When an economy imports goods and services (like the US) that means it's exporting its dollar and that creates the world supply of dollars that other nations trade in.

China, the second largest economy in the world has a tiny fraction of their dollars circulating outside China. Same with Japan. Both export-based economies. THey export goods and services and import their own currency, which, in the case of China, their government has to create and supply to the market just to ensure the world has enough Renminbi just to purchase their goods.

You really need to take a step back, I just don't think that you understand enough of the basics to have a full grasp of the kinds of things that AA is saying. I've tried to challenge him on this stuff and he has, to this point, been reluctant to talk.

 

You didn't really answer the question, and you are ignoring that the value of the dollar has continually fallen.

Now let us look at the value of the dollar.


In what you just explained above, how does that tie into the value of the dollar? The value of the dollar has continually fallen, it has NOT gone UP or stayed the same. How does your arithmetic work into this? In what real world scenario makes it so the value only decreases?