sensible bank regulation

NoDrama · Jul 13, 2013

redivider said:
care to prove he's wrong?

how would a barter society be better than paper currency. please, provide historical and mathematical proof for your bogus hypothesis.

Have any paper currencies stood the test of time? Any at all? nope, all of them have failed. While barter still lives on.

No one said that a barter society would be "better". better is subjective, apparently to you the continual erosion of the currency's purchasing power is your choice of "better" for you.

Rob Roy · Jul 13, 2013

tokeprep said:
I don't think that makes any sense. Currency really has no value; goods and services have value. The purpose of a common currency is just to enable value to be universally denominated in common terms. If you work 40 hours a week for currency, you're really just trading labor, valued at a certain rate in currency, for whatever goods and services you then buy, also valued at a certain rate in currency. These values in currency are relative and adjust based on market activity.

No authoritarian third party is telling you what to barter. You can barter whatever you want, whenever you want. Using currency is a convenience and a choice.

I agree with the jist of the first part of your post, although I'm not sure if it invalidates my post you were "correcting". The last part of your post you might want to think about...of course there is an unwanted authoritarian third party....and you can't barter whatever you want without that third party intervening.

Rob Roy · Jul 13, 2013

tokeprep said:
A forged quotation that was never actually uttered. You know where it actually originated for the very first time? A book written in the 1930s, which is very peculiar when you consider that Rothschild died in 1812.

Okay. So the meaning of the quotation still has relevance.

NoDrama · Jul 13, 2013

tokeprep said:
A forged quotation that was never actually uttered. You know where it actually originated for the very first time? A book written in the 1930s, which is very peculiar when you consider that Rothschild died in 1812.

I think what is being referred to as a quote actually came from Senate hearings 20 years prior to that book you say it originated in.

Let us control the money of a country and we care not who makes the laws" This is the maxim of the house of Rothschild, and is a foundation principle of European Banks. if a country and its people are mortgaged for the assessed value of their property, and the bankers control the money, the bondholders and not the people own that country. It makes no difference whether you call it a republic or a monarchy. The people can never be free " as the borrower is servant to the lender."

T Cushing Daniel
before joint hearings before the subcommittees of the Committees on Banking and Currency of the Senate and of the House of Representatives, charged with the investigation of rural credits, Sixty-third Congress, second session. February 16, 1914

NoDrama · Jul 13, 2013

Rob Roy said:
I agree with the jist of the first part of your post, although I'm not sure if it invalidates my post you were "correcting". The last part of your post you might want to think about...of course there is an unwanted authoritarian third party....and you can't barter whatever you want without that third party intervening.

Correct, if you barter an old pair of jeans with holes in them and some stains for a couple of apples, you are to pay the tax as if you had purchased a brand new pair of jeans on your annual tax form 1040. Thems is the laws, so bartering has basically been outlawed and is enforceable by tax evasion decree, which we all know lands you in prison. 3rd party indeed.

Rob Roy · Jul 13, 2013

Not to mention there are some substances people are prohibited from owning. Bartering / possessing those substances is "illegal" according to the unwanted authoritarian 3rd party that thinks it owns other people.

tokeprep · Jul 13, 2013

NoDrama said:
I think what is being referred to as a quote actually came from Senate hearings 20 years prior to that book you say it originated in.

T Cushing Daniel
before joint hearings before the subcommittees of the Committees on Banking and Currency of the Senate and of the House of Representatives, charged with the investigation of rural credits, Sixty-third Congress, second session. February 16, 1914

The man who was quoted never said this; what you posted does not contradict that. Here it's vaguely called "the maxim of the house of Rothschild" and not specifically attributed to anyone. If you attribute these words to that specific Rothschild, the quote is forged.

NoDrama · Jul 13, 2013

tokeprep said:
The man who was quoted never said this; what you posted does not contradict that. Here it's vaguely called "the maxim of the house of Rothschild" and not specifically attributed to anyone. If you attribute these words to that specific Rothschild, the quote is forged.

Your right, someone made it all up and then other people copied it and 40-120 years later, you know, for effect. Thats the really good devious quote forgers, they always wait until its been a few generations.

tokeprep · Jul 13, 2013

NoDrama said:
Correct, if you barter an old pair of jeans with holes in them and some stains for a couple of apples, you are to pay the tax as if you had purchased a brand new pair of jeans on your annual tax form 1040. Thems is the laws, so bartering has basically been outlawed and is enforceable by tax evasion decree, which we all know lands you in prison. 3rd party indeed.

Except that's blatantly false. Here's the explanation straight from the IRS:
[h=4]"Bartering[/h]Bartering is an exchange of property or services. You must include in your income, at the time received, the fair market value of property or services you receive in bartering. If you exchange services with another person and you both have agreed ahead of time on the value of the services, that value will be accepted as fair market value unless the value can be shown to be otherwise. "

tokeprep · Jul 13, 2013

NoDrama said:
Have any paper currencies stood the test of time? Any at all? nope, all of them have failed. While barter still lives on.

The British pound's been around for 300 years now.

tokeprep · Jul 13, 2013

Rob Roy said:
I agree with the jist of the first part of your post, although I'm not sure if it invalidates my post you were "correcting". The last part of your post you might want to think about...of course there is an unwanted authoritarian third party....and you can't barter whatever you want without that third party intervening.

Why can't you?

tokeprep · Jul 13, 2013

NoDrama said:
Your right, someone made it all up and then other people copied it and 40-120 years later, you know, for effect. Thats the really good devious quote forgers, they always wait until its been a few generations.

Why falsely attribute words to a man when you have no source material? This isn't the only example of fabricated quotes in these works, there are many others.

NoDrama · Jul 13, 2013

tokeprep said:
The British pound's been around for 300 years now.

So I can get a pound of silver for a pound note then?

And how old is the US Dollar?

NoDrama · Jul 13, 2013

tokeprep said:
Why falsely attribute words to a man when you have no source material? This isn't the only example of fabricated quotes in these works, there are many others.

What do you mean they are "Fabricated"? Perhaps falsely or ignorantly attributed to the wrong person. But it would be presumptuous to presume that everything is made up that isn't in the history books of the time.

NoDrama · Jul 13, 2013

tokeprep said:
Except that's blatantly false. Here's the explanation straight from the IRS:
"Bartering

Bartering is an exchange of property or services. You must include in your income, at the time received, the fair market value of property or services you receive in bartering. If you exchange services with another person and you both have agreed ahead of time on the value of the services, that value will be accepted as fair market value unless the value can be shown to be otherwise. "

If I say the jeans are worth 5 cents, the IRS can overrule me and say, No they are worth $120.

Really its a moot point you are trying to convey as it is absolutely a fucking JOKE that I would have to pay tax on a item bartered and already paid the tax on when I purchased it. The IRS doesn't count the value of all your small possessions and make you put it towards income unless you trade it for someone elses junk? What a joke. Guess who doesn't follow that law? Just about everyone.

tokeprep · Jul 14, 2013

NoDrama said:
So I can get a pound of silver for a pound note then?

And how old is the US Dollar?

No, but that doesn't mean it's worthless. How are you going to measure? You want to measure by taking the value of a single unit of currency and evaluating its purchasing power over two periods of time, but that doesn't make any sense.

A person in 1700s Britain worked for x pounds per year; x pounds bought a given amount of goods and services. A person in 2013 Britain works for x pounds per year and x pounds buys whatever. Obviously it takes more pounds to buy the same goods after 300 years, but the worker in 2013 has more pounds. In reality, average people have far more purchasing power than they did 300 years ago.

tokeprep · Jul 14, 2013

NoDrama said:
If I say the jeans are worth 5 cents, the IRS can overrule me and say, No they are worth $120.

Really its a moot point you are trying to convey as it is absolutely a fucking JOKE that I would have to pay tax on a item bartered and already paid the tax on when I purchased it. The IRS doesn't count the value of all your small possessions and make you put it towards income unless you trade it for someone elses junk? What a joke. Guess who doesn't follow that law? Just about everyone.

If you say the jeans are worth 5 cents and the fair market value is actually $120, yes, they can say that. If the fair market value is $5 and that's what you claim, that's that.

The reason there's a barter tax is that a lot of tax could be avoided by bartering. The small stuff is innocuous, but think about larger and more valuable things. "Fair market value" for junk is very low; "fair market value" for a house might be substantial. Of course, I agree that no one pays the tax. I certainly never have.

NoDrama · Jul 14, 2013

tokeprep said:
No, but that doesn't mean it's worthless. How are you going to measure? You want to measure by taking the value of a single unit of currency and evaluating its purchasing power over two periods of time, but that doesn't make any sense.

A person in 1700s Britain worked for x pounds per year; x pounds bought a given amount of goods and services. A person in 2013 Britain works for x pounds per year and x pounds buys whatever. Obviously it takes more pounds to buy the same goods after 300 years, but the worker in 2013 has more pounds. In reality, average people have far more purchasing power than they did 300 years ago.

umm no, if the pound note cannot be exchanged for a pound of silver then its not the same paper pound note from 300 years ago, which was only a warehouse receipt for a pound of silver. You are smart enough to know the difference, why do you pretend to not understand these things?

NoDrama · Jul 14, 2013

tokeprep said:
If you say the jeans are worth 5 cents and the fair market value is actually $120, yes, they can say that. If the fair market value is $5 and that's what you claim, that's that.

The reason there's a barter tax is that a lot of tax could be avoided by bartering. The small stuff is innocuous, but think about larger and more valuable things. "Fair market value" for junk is very low; "fair market value" for a house might be substantial. Of course, I agree that no one pays the tax. I certainly never have.

So the law seems pretty stupid then eh?

How much bartering for homes do you see going on? Was this a huge problem at one time? People bartering their homes for a can of peaches and the government stepping in and saying " NO" you can't sell that house for what you want, you have to sell it for what WE want!!

PS there is no sales tax on a home purchase. Box dwellers on the second or third floor may not know this.

The tax isn't the problem, they don't tax you for it, they add it to your income and you pay the tax on the house as if it were actual income and not a can of peaches. then you get to pay the $60,000 of income tax on the average home you just sold for a can of peaches. But since you only have a can of peaches and no money, looks like debtors prison for you ( It doesn't actually exist, its called failure to pay taxes prison now).

tokeprep · Jul 14, 2013

NoDrama said:
umm no, if the pound note cannot be exchanged for a pound of silver then its not the same paper pound note from 300 years ago, which was only a warehouse receipt for a pound of silver. You are smart enough to know the difference, why do you pretend to not understand these things?

The pound of silver is irrelevant. Whatever it was worth, that's what the currency bought 300 years ago; that's the purchasing power a person 300 years ago actually had with that currency. It's substantially less than purchasing power today.

You want to take silver and today's market price as if it's relevant to past valuation or some alternative for what modern currency could be worth. It is not. Modern currency could not possibly be made of gold or silver because it would be completely impractical.

sensible bank regulation

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member