Money vs Currency. Explaining Gold.

[Steven Douglas]

Red herring - economic law and the theory of money is immune to what you or I "think".

Hey, economics 101 worshiper, don't conflate "economic law" (I assume you mean reality, regardless of our ability to accurately describe or predict it) and "theory of money" as if they were one and the same. They aren't. Economists are about on par with Climatologists in my opinion. They babble on amongst themselves in an unintelligible rats nest of a language that bears little connection with reality, and is prone to obfuscation. Much of what you babble on about here is right on par with that. It's not intellectual-speak. It's pseudo-intellectual and practically unlimited appeals to authority. You have done it many times in this thread. You hide behind the omnibus shield of "economic theory", as if it has any validity or meaning.

There was no red herring in my question. It was an attempt separate you from your airs of economic theory superiority babbling, and test your belief in your own theory. In plain language, based on conclusions you have drawn, derived from theories you hold to be true.

I don't care WHY you think they're true. That's the red herring. I don't give a crap about the internal gobblety-gook workings of your economic theory pretzel machine, any more than I would care to listen to a geek go on for days about the theory of his perpetual motion machine design.

If what all that you have claimed in this thread is true, then you should have no objections whatsoever to repeal of legal tender laws, and the removal of all barriers to entry for competing currencies. That would be a test, NOT of the efficacy of your theory of money, but rather your belief in that theory - which I don't believe you have. Else I believe you would have, WITHOUT HESITATION and at the very least, that you were neutral to it. At best you would consider it a waste of time and energy, but would respect - EVEN WELCOME IT - as it could finally put your theory to a RIGOROUS TEST. And you could finally shut everyone up - goldbugs, silverbugs, everyone...for good.

That would convince me that you really did have a scientific, and not faith-based pseudoscientific, outlook on your theory of money.

In short, you failed, sir. I cannot be convinced that you believe in your own theories. At least not the way you have presented them. I believe that you support paper currencies, and very much believe in them, but I do not believe for one second that you don't see competition in currencies as a foundational threat thereto.

[Black Flag]

Economists are about on par with Climatologists in my opinion.

Hmmm... now I understand you better....

There was no red herring in my question.

Of course it was.

You want my political opinion on some matter, which has nothing to do with money.
PS: and, to quite you, I gave it already previously...

finally put your theory to a RIGOROUS TEST. And you could finally shut everyone up - goldbugs, silverbugs, everyone...for good.

Mises already did that, no need for me to re-walk that path.

[Theory of Money and Credit]
http://mises.org/books/Theory_Money_.../Contents.aspx

[KMX]

What happens to our money in the bank when the dollar crashes? Should I pull it all out and buy silver and gold before it happens? IM very new to all this. Thanks

[Black Flag]

What happens to our money in the bank when the dollar crashes? Should I pull it all out and buy silver and gold before it happens? IM very new to all this. Thanks

It is very unlikely the dollar will "crash" - think beyond what that would mean to you, and think of what it would do to the banking elite.

It is very likely that for the mid-term, the dollar production and manufacturing will increase. Follow the law of supply and demand - and increase in supply will lead to a decrease in demand, hence lower the price of money in terms of other goods - ie: inflation.

It is probable that in the long-term, money manufacturing will be halted before the oversupply of money makes money worthless, reversing the situation.

If you are afraid of losing the value of your dollar, buy today what you would buy with your silver and gold if the situation you are trying to protect yourself from by buying this silver and gold comes to pass.

In other words, buy what you would need then, but right now and store it, while the price is cheaper than waiting until you and 300 million other people need it in your perceived emergency.

[Steven Douglas]

You want my political opinion on some matter, which has nothing to do with money.

As another poster already said, and quite succinctly - you punted. You could have put that question to rest without anyone even able to prove or conclude anything about it one way or the other. But you...refused to answer. However, I don't think it's a stretch to say that, in a very real way, we did get an answer.

Here's my hypothetical prediction. You walk into the private polling booth on election day. There are two questions, each voter initiated referendums for a Constitutional amendment (I know we don't have those, just go with me on it), on the ballot:

REFERENDUM 1 - Vote to repeal legal tender laws.

PREDICTION: Black Flag privately pulls the NO lever.

REFERENDUM 2 - Vote to prohibit all economic barriers to entry for competing currencies.

PREDICTION: Black Flag privately pulls the NO lever.

No-brainer to me - and also a no-brainer in my mind as to why you would do that, in both cases.

Now, either what I wrote is true or it is not true. Only you know the answer to that with any certainty. But it doesn't matter. If what I wrote is true, Lucy, you got some inner 'splainin' to do, because you...are...self-conflicted (or dishonest with us). If what I wrote was false, then you have to ask yourself why you didn't just answer and put an end to that question - because there would have been nothing more to discuss in that regard afterward.

[Bern]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Steven Douglas again.

[Black Flag]

As another poster already said, and quite succinctly - you punted.

Then you can't read.

Here's my hypothetical prediction.

And about as relevant as any other red herring you've promoted today.

[Steven Douglas]

And about as relevant as any other red herring you've promoted today.

Humor me.

[WilliamC]

A claim that the government forces you to use FRBN and it is illegal to do otherwise is a rather core and substantial part of your argument regarding your theory of money!



A political opinion and has nothing to do with any theory of money.



No where, ever, have I said this.

Such a claim is a blatant strawman.

I have explained with good clarity, and repeatedly, exactly and precisely what makes money and why FRBN is money, and it has nothing to do with government being any legitimate authority.



Not one bit.

The Brits used Tally sticks up to 1970, which was legal to pay your tax debt. Do you believe the Brits in 1970 thought the Tally sticks were money or the that British Pound was money?



There are many economic activities that you can engage in that does not include government - and they don't care what you use to trade.

Yes, you need FRN to pay the government - period.



Your misunderstanding notwithstanding.

No thank you, I understand your position as an apologist for the State quite well.

Albeit just the part that requires the State to be the sole legal issuer of money.

Do you happen to support the right to keep and bear arms?

If so there is hope yet because in an armed society it's easier to shoot the bastard tax collectors when they get too obtrusive.

[Black Flag]

No thank you, I understand your position as an apologist for the State quite well.

You are insane.

I challenge you to find one comment from me to support your ignorant assertion.