twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Scholarly?? Just cause they used the word scholar lol really? Why should we believe it was so unstable if the data is so unreliable??
Impossible! The deficit is falling as well as unemployment Obama wrecking economy
- Thread starter ChesusRice
- Start date
Oh yes, your dictionary definitions were irrelevant, but those didn't come from court cases, the code, or the constitution, as you just claimed. The words did, but the definitions did not, which is why they were irrelevant. One of your silly claims, for example, was that the dictionary definition of the word "note" disproves debt monetization. This is blatant ignorance.
As for the text of the statute: you were initially under the impression that statutes were updated to reflect legislative amendments and court cases, and you used this as your basis for asserting that the redemption portion of that statute must have meaning. But as the court cases revealed, the redemption provision is substantively meaningless--it's a trade of Federal Reserve Notes for Federal Reserve Notes and nothing more. Thus it is irrelevant: since you can't redeem for gold and silver, the provision has no real meaning anymore. Until congress amends the statute to strike the words, though, the words remain part of the code.
You'll have to tell me what facts were irrelevant and I'll be happy to explain why they're irrelevant, just like with the code section above. But if you still can't understand how that text is there despite not having any substantive meaning today, I'm not sure there's any hope. We have a court case confirming exactly what I said and you still deny it, pretending instead that the court case says something it doesn't (I challenged you to quote your conclusions from the text of the relevant case and you never did).
The original constitution didn't accept and embrace slavery? Slaves weren't 3/5s of a person? Black people were free to vote? People who didn't own property could vote? Women could vote? Everyone in this country enjoyed all of those rights supposedly enshrined in the constitution? I'm sorry you don't recall these flaws, but that doesn't erase them from history.
Original intent undid all of these horrible things? You're going to have to explain how that's the case. I was under the impression that it took almost 200 years before we enabled black people to meaningfully vote, and now you're telling me that it was a consequence of original intent?
Their physical libraries, certainly, but that's irrelevant since I can access and analyze vastly more information than our framers ever could, immediately, with just a few simple clicks. My library--the internet--is indeed much larger. My tools--even just Excel--are far more powerful than their quills and parchment.
If you embrace the framers' economic thoughts you ignore 200 years of research and experimentation conducted in the modern world that they could not have accessed or anticipated.
Just because they used the word? Academic economists are incapable of being scholarly then?
I'm not calling the dollar unstable in the precious metals heyday (never have), I asked why we should believe you when you say it was stable if the data is so unreliable. I'm just calling you out for embracing data when it supports the argument you're trying to make and then decrying it as soon as it doesn't.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Ya the opponents of slavery wanted slaves to count for 3/5ths. Black people were free to vote??
What a loaded bullshit argument are you a racist trying to lead me down to raceville?? YOU brought it up.
The Constitution granted inalienable rights to people regardless of sex of color. To deny these based on sex or color was hypocritical. For us and the World that still practiced those things and still do.
You are arguing original intent was to keep slaves in the fields and women out of polls. You have fell off sir.
What a loaded bullshit argument are you a racist trying to lead me down to raceville?? YOU brought it up.
The Constitution granted inalienable rights to people regardless of sex of color. To deny these based on sex or color was hypocritical. For us and the World that still practiced those things and still do.
You are arguing original intent was to keep slaves in the fields and women out of polls. You have fell off sir.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Why believe me? After all what evidence do I have other than what literally traded 1:1 (silver to paper) now trades 1:22...........you think this gap is progress and stability somehow and are only able to reason it to yourself.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
See the ignorance is thinking lawyers don't define terms specifically and cohere to them.
The definition of the word "note" means it represents the idea of something and represents a debt or obligation that...........say it with me now.....must be "endorsed". I am silly because I can read a legal dictionary? Is the bank silly when they make you "endorse" a mortgage or is it more likely that I am right and they have to according to laws of contract and definitions of notes.
Fail dude just fail.
Congress hasn't gotten around to updating the code.....Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn...........................the code is updated, right now. Every part you think is irrelevant has been updated THIS YEAR.........I already showed you that. Your hope must be someone else will chime in here not having read what we already discussed, then get me witch hunt style.
If you can't understand why it's still there having been updated this year, still remaining in small part on your notes, and reflected in every court case we mentioned then it is you that has no hope or any business in legislature. The court case you think proves you right upheld the redemption because it lawfully has to.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Lol you have never even substantiated the modern data you spout.
My answer is that what you have presented is spotty at best and cannot dispose of an alternative view of it.
You're reading the constitution as we read it today, not as the framers originally intended it. Women did not have the right to vote; slavery was not only permitted but explicitly referenced in the document. Original intent is white male property owners holding all the rights and all the power.
How can you deny reality that spanned generations?
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Oh so your argument is ppl are too lazy to read and re-read. Your post and laws. Ok then.
How many of these have to do with redemption? You can't just lump everything into your own definition of what relates to redemption for sake of argument now.
The first contradictory statement that started it all:
tokeprep said:
If it's irrelevant then why does it fuck over people that save cash? A penny saved is a penny lost.
tokeprep said:
"real" is talking about the definition of Note I just quoted you.
tokeprep said:
tokeprep said:
ignoring the fact I already agreed with you.....employees were literally paid in silver, that is, they had the option when they cashed their checks. Literally. Which is different from effectivly. Regardless of spot then. I never said the spot of "back when" mattered at all only this is proof inflation and wages have not kept pace at all...........back to finding irrelevant......
tokeprep said:
ignoring current spot price and the difference in Currency and Money.
tokeprep said:
from post 593 we were talking about the def of Note, the Constitution and current Statutes.
tokeprep said:
you are redefining note here...also ignoring court cased had to redeem accoring to current law.
tokeprep said:
You calling a statute that I presented to you irrelevant. Also my claim was a FRN was removed from circulation when Redeemed.
tokeprep said:
Here you ignore legal structure and dismiss it as functionally irrelevant because you assume it functions to your benefit....and cite gov supremecy in a Constitutional Republic no less.
tokeprep said:
Ignoring the Banking Emergency President's notes and personal opinions on this current fiat system. While not a definition certainly relevant.
tokeprep said:
Keep saying it all you want it still doesn't make it true. Me,the banks and economy and government and the world disagree with you.
tokeprep said:
Here is you insisting the definition of credit is irrelevant. If printed money is not borrowed why jump all the legal hoops? Economic Stimulus?
pffft all you argue with is opinions you need to be in a philsophy forum. Do you buy weed? Are you mad the Fed hasn't lowered your price for you?
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
The reality that spanned generations is for another thread unless you mean the reality that is missing economically now....meaning gold and silver not slavery I will not follow you down that road to nowhere sir.
You assume original intent by some of the framers was not the exact opposite. I challenge you to back up your statement with something other than the 13th amendment which was not a part of the original document just for shits and giggles...keeping in mind it has nothing to do with the economy today or this thread.
You literally just said the Constitution specifically bans women from voting and specifically legalizes slavery. The Document in fact abolished these things.....have you run out of things to say about the current Economy?
And that's the fundamental problem. When your dollar had silver in it, it was worth less than the coin. Your $1 was $1--the silver content was irrelevant because face value was higher. The increase in silver prices has nothing to do with silver being money and everything to do with industrial use of silver. These industrial users are willing to bid the price of silver up so long as they make a profit on whatever they're doing with it, and they consume huge quantities of silver--most of the world's supply.
If you tie the value of your coins to silver, you're competing with industrial users to acquire vast quantities of metal to make coins, driving the price up. What if industrial demand suddenly collapses? Prices plummet, and so does the real value of the coins. You're gambling on demand and driving your own speculative bubble. Silver isn't in coins because it isn't economically practical or prudent.
The real value of your supposedly 1:1 silver dollar was about $7.86 in 1960, when the minimum wage was $1. Comparing that to the minimum wage today, there is a real decline, but it's certainly not 1:22.
You're right that lawyers are careful to define and cohere to terms. Indeed, a "note" is very well defined in commercial law; using the word "note" in a commercial contract can have legal effect, if the note is substantively a note. Alas, the large body of lawyers that wrote the UCC, which I just referenced, chose to specifically exclude Federal Reserve Notes from their legal definition of a commercial "note." What did they appreciate that you don't?
Quite simply, a Federal Reserve Note is not substantively a promissory note. A promissory note is a promise to pay; a Federal Reserve Note is a unit of payment. The fact that it's still called a "note" is what you claim is so damning. Surely the lawyers carefully chose that word, and surely it's meaningful. Indeed, it was carefully chosen and it was meaningful. When they called it a Federal Reserve Note, the treasury was legally obligated to hold a certain amount of gold to back the note up. The note represented a portion of that gold until the 1970s.
The treasury's obligation to back notes in gold ceased then, and now they're legally backed by nothing but the government's decree that they're legal tender. The word "note" is just a historical anachronism. Lawyers appreciate this fact because they understand that the word "note" isn't sufficient to make something a note. You can call a note anything you want and it's still a note; likewise, you can call anything that's not a note a note, and that doesn't make it a note. You attach present meaning to a word that was formerly meaningful, and that's the mistake your careful lawyers avoid.
You don't endorse Federal Reserve Notes, so I don't understand why you're even bringing endorsement up.
What do you mean the part I think is irrelevant has been updated this year? It hasn't been updated since 1935! You couldn't possibly have shown me otherwise!
It's still in there because congress has never amended the law, even though it's anachronistic since there is no gold or silver conversion. The text stays until they amend the law to strike it. You seem to be under the impression that the code is regularly edited to remove anachronisms or to consider the effect of court decisions, and that's just not true. When lawyers research the law, they have to consider not only the text of the law but also all of the court cases about it. When you pay a lawyer, one of the things you're paying for is a fee for them do the equivalent of a Google search on a statute to get all the court cases about it.
The plaintiff in the case you're referencing argued that the presence of that language in the code meant that his Federal Reserve Notes must still be redeemed in gold and silver. The court found the treasury's tender of an equivalent value of Federal Reserve Notes sufficient to satisfy the redemption requirement in the statute. Trading $100 for $100 is substantively meaningless, but it gave formal effect to the language still in legal effect.
How do you want me to substantiate it?
As for the recession data: you have the whole historical record. There is no doubt about these recessions taking place because they're well attributed in American history, often with very specific and well-documented causes. What is there to doubt? You think the timing is too generous? Alright, let's say the economy was in recession 30% of the time. Compared to the post-World War II era, that's still a terrible, terrible record!
You know what I noticed about your list? You didn't quote me calling a single line of the code, a court case, or the constitution irrelevant, even though that's what you initially said I had done. But nonetheless:
The second part explicitly says that if you're dumb enough to save cash you're going to lose value to inflation. I didn't ignore your unfortunate savers or call their problem irrelevant, I called them morons.
Right.
Why have an independent central bank? So the treasury can't print money at the president's discretion? That's why we have it.
A huge portion of the population doesn't save and has no assets. They live paycheck to paycheck. The only inflation they experience is in wages; my statement was that inflation was irrelevant to wage earners.
The second part explicitly says that if you're dumb enough to save cash you're going to lose value to inflation. I didn't ignore your unfortunate savers or call their problem irrelevant, I called them morons.
My statement says that it's irrelevant that the better result is the result of manipulation--the manipulation is worth the better result.
My statement is that silver content was irrelevant in 1913 because it was well below the face value of the coin. Absolutely true. They didn't give a fuck.
My statement says that you can easily practice your Austrian beliefs by converting your assets into metals. I'm not ignoring anything.
My statement doesn't call any text irrelevant, it just says that substance is more important than formalism (formalism is irrelevant compared to substance).
My statement's didn't redefine the obligation, the government did. I didn't ignore the court case at all--I acknowledged that it gave formal effect to a substantively meaningless provision.
The fact that the treasury has the legal authority to issue United States Notes is irrelevant to making your case that something is removed from circulation when a Federal Reserve Note is redeemed for a Federal Reserve Note. The treasury has had the legal authority since congress gave it to them--they just never took it away. You can't find any statute or court that verifies your redemption nonsense about removing something from circulation. You got this idea from another statute that enables the treasury to trade Federal Reserve Notes for old forms of currency, which the treasury then destroys. Technically nothing is removed from circulation, because the traded obligation was part of the public debt.
My statement is absolutely true. When you monetize debt, you aren't really borrowing anything--you're printing fresh cash and paying real obligations off with it, resulting in inflation. The fact that the treasury is "borrowing" the money from the central bank is irrelevant because the central bank is legally obligated to pay its profits to the treasury. Thus it is not borrowing, it's pure printing.
I didn't ignore it, I said it wasn't the law, because it's not. The president can only make law with the cooperation of congress.
Right. The definition of "note" in Black's is certainly more meaningful to banks, governments, and people than the definition of "note" in the UCC, which is the law in all fifty states.
Right.
You're complaining about the government's printing of money creating inflation, and in the same breath you deny that the government has such a power. Make up your mind. Which is it?
Why have an independent central bank? So the treasury can't print money at the president's discretion? That's why we have it.
You did nothing but vindicate me. You told me that I called the text of the original sources irrelevant, and yet all your quotes did no such thing.
What the fuck are you talking about? Women couldn't vote until the 1900s. Slavery wasn't outlawed until the 1860s. The constitution abolished those things? Then how did they exist after 1791!?
Original intent is a terrible trap for you, really. Don't fall for it. I assure you, the southern states never--never--would have ratified that constitution on anything other than my version of original intent. That original intent underpinned their arguments almost a century later.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Nope in that list there are very specific parts of cases, code and constitution you refereed to as simply "irrelevant"...go back to the posts and check the context and "original intent" lol
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
I meant it was used to facilitate the abolishment, those practices were alive and well before and after 1791. Still waiting on that citing I asked for.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Care to differentiate between the two? I mean with you doing the work and presentation of course I have a garden to tend.