I put away a few CU small portrait bills before all the redesigns. Maybe they'll be worth what they were worth when they were printed at some point.
Anyway, the the hell with all of the dead people. Let's put something on those bills that everyone in the world will recognize.
Star Wars spacecraft.
Tie fighters on the single, X-Wings on the fives, the Millennium Falcon on the $20's, the Death Star on the $100. Put planet landscapes on the reverse. Tatooine on the single, Nauboo on the five, Coruscant on the $100...
Harriet Tubman is barely a footnote in American history, not a worthy subject in the slightest. About the best I can say is that at least she wasn't a professional politician.
This sounds like part of the war on cash, make it aesthetically repulsive and politically idiotic to thereby discourage its use.
Originally posted by: Bayard1908 Harriet Tubman is barely a footnote in American history, not a worthy subject in the slightest. About the best I can say is that at least she wasn't a professional politician.
This sounds like part of the war on cash, make it aesthetically repulsive and politically idiotic to thereby discourage its use.
She took enormous risks to help oppressed people become free. Not just once, but many times.
She wasn't born into her position. She didn't marry into it. Quite the opposite.
Her life story symbolizes what America stands for, or should stand for.
This isn't political correctness. It is honoring someone who deserves to be honored in this fashion.
I agree. She was an American patriot and a war hero (Union Army nurse before she was an armed Union Army spy). Glad it's her.
I think it's great. Interesting for sure
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
I would like to see Woodrow Wilson, FDR , and Richard Nixon all lined up side by side with Lady Liberty smacking them across their faces . That's what should be on the $ 20 bill. The three biggest nitwits responsible for the U.S. dollar loosing 96 % of it's value, having their faces smacked blood red by an Amazonian Lady Liberty .
America divided between 5 major presidential candidates. Wealthy real estate speculator and businessman appeals to the common man, takes a plurality despite being denounced by Washington insiders as vulgar, uncouth, dangerous. Outrageous accusations of bigamy, mother was a prostitute, wife is a slut, he's a pimp, he's a cannibal.
We're talking about Andrew Jackson. The Trump comparison is eerie, and some Jackson $20 bills rubber stamped "Great Heroes of Real Estate -- Indian Removal Act of 1830" were made as a Shaun Slifer history exhibit in 2005 -- not as a present-day attempt to link Jackson and Trump.
Aside from the "Trail of Tears" where some 5,000 native Americans died during a forced march from the southeastern states to Oklahoma, Jackson owned some 300 slaves, and ran advertisements such as this when there was a runaway. "30 years old, six feet -one, talks sensible, remarkable large feet" The finder's $50 reward can be increased by $10 for every hundred lashes given to him - up to $300
Frank Provasek - PCGS Authorized Dealer, Life Member ANA, Member TNA. www.frankcoins.com
I think it's great that they're going to put a pro-gun Republican on our $20 bills.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
There was no oppression. Sure, that's what they called it. But history has always played out the way it did according to language barriers, the lack of education, color and a race's smell? That's right, people hung together if they smelled, looked and talked alike. To single out one person as being the cause of some fight against some kind of suppressed people 100's of years ago is a slap to many faces. All blacks, whites, reds were all working to do only one thing back then and to this very day and that was to survive. I was at an auction last weekend when some old hillbilly looking guy with thick waded hair braids came in and sat down directly behind me. I immediately noticed how bad that guy smelled and immediately removed myself to the other side of the room and 8 rows back. There's a kind out there who don't believe in bathing, doing laundry or cutting their hair and that guy was one of them. But I can imagine that guy hangs with others just like himself and they probably all just love each others company. But that's the way it's been since man began walking this earth. They all need to stick together and make the best of it. And not expect all others to automatically respect them for what and who they are. Sure, we can all be pleasant and kind to each other but hanging with some folks.....God did not have those intentions when He created us to our kind. While I'm white, some of my greatest friends are black, Mexicans and a few Indians. But I seldom hang with them because there are always the bad apples that come along and just don't understand so I always know when I need to part. I remember dating a Italian-Indian girl and every time...well, she just had this stink about her. Heck, my daughter is dating a Mexican and my son has married a half Mexican girl. When we voted last month in the primaries, my daughter's boyfriend hadn't registered before. While I usually vote republican, I told him that he should register as a democrat because that's where his Police unions are and so he did. I said, vote for Bernie. But he's a young man, 22 and it really took him awhile to vote. Later that day, I over heard him telling my daughter how he couldn't find Trump's name anywhere on that ballot. At that point it was time to go feed the cats because I knew I was about to lose my marbles..........
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
Treasury out of money, cancels Tubman on the $20 Just hours after announcing that civil rights pioneer Harriet Tubman would replace Pres. Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill, the Treasury Department canceled the project after realizing it no longer has any money.
“After making the announcement honoring Ms. Tubman, we looked in the Treasury Department vault to figure out how many twenties we could afford to roll out,” said a high-level department official who asked to be identified as “Lou Jack.” Tubman Cancelled
Originally posted by: mrearlygold Treasury out of money, cancels Tubman on the $20 Just hours after announcing that civil rights pioneer Harriet Tubman would replace Pres. Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill, the Treasury Department canceled the project after realizing it no longer has any money.
“After making the announcement honoring Ms. Tubman, we looked in the Treasury Department vault to figure out how many twenties we could afford to roll out,” said a high-level department official who asked to be identified as “Lou Jack.” Tubman Cancelled
We're out of money like......20 Trillion!
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
Originally posted by: BillJones Hamilton's bank model was inspired by the Bank of England which was privately owned but bore the responsibility for bringing stability to the British banking system. Was Hamilton's model flawed? Yes. Private for-profit ownership of any portion of the bank should not have been part of the model.
British banking dynasties still exert some control over the US Federal Reserve, in contrast to what the American Revolution was all about.
Note that in 2002 the Queen of England knighted Alan Greenspan because of his "contribution to global economic stability". Where was all that "economic stability" six years later in 2008 ?
Follow the money trail because it is always about the money.
Originally posted by: BillJones When times are tough, private bankers tend to pull in their horns, which is a prudent policy for a for-profit institution. That runs counter to the need to increase liquidity during an economic down turn. Conversely a for-profit bank tends to keep making loans during over heated economic expansions. At those times putting on the breaks is very much in order. The modern Federal Reserve turns a profit as a by-product of its operations, but that's not the purpose of the institution.
Why does the Federal Reserve always stringently argue against being audited ? If they really were a benevolent not-for-profit organization, they would have nothing to hide and they wouldn't be so opposed to being audited.
When there is an economic downturn, and the central bank injects liquidity, who receives that liquidity ? Not you or I. That liquidity ALWAYS goes to the top. In 2008 when much of the economy was clamoring for a bailout, the vast majority of bailout funds went to the top financial institutions. Liquidity can be injected at all levels of the economy, not just at the top tier. The 2008 bailout could have gone, at least in part, to the people. That, would have had the effect of bolstering household balance sheets which, in turn, would have helped the mortgage-backed securities that were at the heart of the crisis.
Over time, enabled by central banks, debt structures become ever more precarious. Letting them collapse becomes more and more unpalatable, even though that is exactly what should be allowed to happen.
Iceland makes for an interesting case study. Rather than bail out their banks in 2008, the people took control and blocked that. Banks failed. Bankers were actually sent to prison. They suffered a severe economic recession, like the rest of the world. But their economy recovered after a couple years and they now better off for it and are doing well.
Originally posted by: BillJones I suppose that "golden period" for you was the period between the end of the Civil War and 1913 when the Federal Reserve Banking System was created. During those years there was solid reform led by the National Bank Act, which resulted in "National Bank Notes," and the tax on privately issued bank notes, which ended that corrupt system. Before that, the largely unregulated state banks could issue paper in unlimited quantities if they wanted to, which ended in economic disaster for anyone who was holding currency from a defunct bank. During that "golden period" there were the Panics of 1873, 1893 and 1907 plus a mini panic when Jim Fisk and Jay Gould tried to corner the gold market.
As for going back on the gold standard, that concept is ludicrous. What will the gold price be? One hundred thousand dollars an ounce? A million dollars an ounce? A hundred million dollars an ounce? There is not enough gold in the world to support a meaningful gold standard for The United States or any other developed country.
And yes, the gold standard can artificially restrict the money supply which might or might not be appropriate. Why should monetary policy be controlled by the supply of a specific commodity? Why start a depression simply because the money supply has be controlled by the amount of gold a country has in its vaults at an arbitrary fixed price? That kind of thinking started the Panic of 1893.
I personally am not advocating a return to a "Gold Standard". But I am pointing out that significant debt-free economic growth can occur with a gold standard.
A privately-issued bank note is essentially a loan to that bank from a depositor (creditor). If you hold such a note, you are a creditor to that bank. But the bank doesn't pay any interest on that deposit. That is why they seek to do it that way. They issue circulating bank notes which don't pay any interest, but they charge interest when they loan out those bank notes. Free money to them.
It is always wise for any creditor to perform the proper due diligence and investigate the credit-worthiness of the entity that is being loaned to. This includes depositors who are essentially loaning money to a bank or other financial institution.
But as banks often do, the temptation to engage in Ponzi-like schemes is too strong to resist. Issuing more bank notes than there are deposits is easy money, for a time. But a bad scheme will fail, with or without a gold standard and with or without a central bank.
Originally posted by: BillJones I don't even know why you bring up Occupy Wall Street and the 99% bunch. Those people are simply socialists and anarchists who think that the world owes them a living. They are ignorant nihilists, most of whom don't even know how the old Soviet Union worked (or didn't work) with their Five Year Plans. They should be part of the lunatic fringe although it seems they are becoming the heart and soul of "progressive thought."
Thomas Jefferson which was in the most poorly informed of all the founding fathers on the subjects of business and economics. His idea of utopia was to have the majority of citizens, half starved, trying to scratch out a living on subsistence farms. His world only worked with slavery, which was why he was never able to give it up despite his high sounding principles. He knew nothing about banking and finance. The ending legacy of his presidency was the disastrous trade embargo that he imposed which created a domestic economic depression and did nothing to fix the problems we were have with the British and the French.
You previously indicated that "right wing people" believe that a central bank is not necessary. You also stated that "Occupy Wall Street" and "99%" people are "socialists". Those groups tend to oppose central banking. That is why I brought it up, to illustrate your contradiction.
If things keep going in the direction they are now, eventually the only formation of capitol will be held solely by the central bank, and anyone wishing to embark on any endeavor will have to pay tribute (interest) to that central bank. It is an insidious mechanism to gain control over everyone. Thomas Jefferson summed it up:
"The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."
Pretty soon the "future" is all tapped out, and the debt structures, no matter how big and complex they have become, will fall.
....There is a strong need for a modern economic system to have a central bank regardless of what some far right wing people believe. The Gold Standard is an archaic and simple minded theory. In truth it didn't work that well in the simpler times when it was tried.
One can certainly object to the policies that the modern Federal Reserve System has enacted over the years, but the need for a central bank is obvious to anyone who has seriously studied economic history.
No monetary standard works effectively when the bankers and politicians cheat on it. If you check your 19th century history you'll find that a "strict" and workable gold standard was rarely in effect. Most of the 19th century was bi-metalism, national bank notes, green backs, and other variations/abominations. Bankers printed and loaned out paper currency when they wanted to. Hard to blame anything on a gold standard when there really wasn't an effective and regulated standard. 1900-1913 was probably the only true classical US gold standard. And that was pre-empted by WW1, never to return again with all the original requirements intact. The period from 1919-1933 was a shell of the previous standard.
The price of gold is irrelevant in having a working standard. The vast majority of trade and commerce during an effective gold standard are done with real bills and other intermediary products. That's the way it worked. It's a common fallacy that huge piles of gold traded hands on every commercial and retail transaction. Read up on Dr. Antele Fekete if you want to understand how a gold standard works. And it's no secret that bankers are not fans of any monetary standard where there is strict accountability. Let's not even discuss the viability of a precious metal's standards when there is such malarky in our fiat money system such as the FED's fractional reserve money multiplier ratio where $1 can magically become up to $10. That's pure Ponzi. Like DCarr I'm not advocating a return to a gold standard, the horses left that barn long ago. Rather, I'm just pointing out the facts that it wasn't the standard that failed.....but the people in charge of it.
But I am pointing out that significant debt-free economic growth can occur with a gold standard.
The big point that gets missed is that to get debt-free you would have to destroy the debt market - mortgages, credit cards, auto loans, college loans, etc.
I'm not saying debt is good, but our economy is built on it. It needs to be properly managed. Congress is to blame for not managing it properly. They refuse to balance the tax vs growth equation.
Originally posted by: EagleEye But I am pointing out that significant debt-free economic growth can occur with a gold standard.
The big point that gets missed is that to get debt-free you would have to destroy the debt market - mortgages, credit cards, auto loans, college loans, etc.
I'm not saying debt is good, but our economy is built on it. It needs to be properly managed. Congress is to blame for not managing it properly. They refuse to balance the tax vs growth equation.
Our current economy is built entirely on a debt-based monetary system. But it wasn't always that way.
Debt-based systems will function reasonably well, so long as the population is ever increasing. But the human population can not continue to expand forever. Environmental resistance will limit it. The relatively recent changes in demographics (slowing birth rate in industrialized countries, for example) is a warning for the debt-based economy. I believe this is the real reason behind the lax immigration enforcement: more and more people are need to change the course of demographics, and to keep the debt structures from collapsing.
In other words, to keep the whole thing afloat, more and more people need to take on larger amounts of debt.
I disagree - Debt needs to be properly managed. After the huge increase in debt during WWII, it took until 1960 to pay down that debt increase. Tax rates were up to 90%! People understood that we have to repay our debts. They understood the reason for the WWII debt - freedom. They paid it. They wouldn't pay 90% today, I think.
Today, our leaders (Congress - they control the purse strings) want nothing to do with repaying the debt. When they say NO to tax increases, they are saying NO to debt servicing. No one likes taxes, but if you want the debt to go down, well, what else is available? Increasing the pool of taxable entities, as you suggest?
"The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."
Pretty soon the "future" is all tapped out, and the debt structures, no matter how big and complex they have become, will fall."
This is the same Thomas Jefferson who borrowed large sums of money to build and add on to Monticello. Part of that loan was still owed upon his death. The nation was blessed that Hamilton and not Jefferson was overseeing the monetary system in those days.
Originally posted by: bolivarshagnasty "The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."
Pretty soon the "future" is all tapped out, and the debt structures, no matter how big and complex they have become, will fall."
This is the same Thomas Jefferson who borrowed large sums of money to build and add on to Monticello. Part of that loan was still owed upon his death. The nation was blessed that Hamilton and not Jefferson was overseeing the monetary system in those days.
Yes, it is. So he ought to know - been there, done that.
In general, though, I take his quotes that I posted as referring to the public sector (government).
Originally posted by: EagleEye I disagree - Debt needs to be properly managed. After the huge increase in debt during WWII, it took until 1960 to pay down that debt increase. Tax rates were up to 90%! People understood that we have to repay our debts. They understood the reason for the WWII debt - freedom. They paid it. They wouldn't pay 90% today, I think.
Today, our leaders (Congress - they control the purse strings) want nothing to do with repaying the debt. When they say NO to tax increases, they are saying NO to debt servicing. No one likes taxes, but if you want the debt to go down, well, what else is available? Increasing the pool of taxable entities, as you suggest?
I've seen very few, if any, taxes advertised as having the purpose of "paying down debt".
North Dakota has the right idea. The state has no public debt and they operate a state-run bank for the benefit of citizens. They have cut out the middle man (Wall Street and commercial banks). They could do this because they never got too far in debt in the first place.
The Denver Public School (DPS) system got reamed by Goldman Sachs (GS) for $216 million dollars on credit default swaps (CDSs). DPS was in a tough spot because they got themselves into debt. GS comes in to save the day, by selling CDSs to DPS. But, in reality, GS had put lipstick on pigs, sold them to clients (such as DPS), and then behind the clients' backs GS slaughtered the pigs and ate them (by selling short on the very "securities" they had sold to clients). The City and County of Denver was forced to jack up real estate taxes to pay off GS on the losing CDS bet. The property tax increase was disguised by reassessing the values of the land (raising it significantly), while lowering the assessments on the actual buildings a little bit. Had DPS never gotten into debt in the first place, they wouldn't have been in a position to get taken to cleaners like this: Denver Pays Wall Street $216 Million as Swaps Fail
WW2 was largely financed via extreme levels of taxes, and also by bond sales to the general public ($25 "war bonds" and the like). Funding was not sought in large part from financial institutions. The government certainly didn't bet on credit default swaps. The increase in Federal debt during WW2 was significant when measured as a percentage of GDP. But most of the GDP naturally went into the government's war effort. When measured in simple dollar terms, the increase in Federal debt wasn't really that much. At the time, people understood the need for sacrifice, and paid the high taxes.
Comments
Anyway, the the hell with all of the dead people. Let's put something on those bills that everyone in the world will recognize.
Star Wars spacecraft.
Tie fighters on the single, X-Wings on the fives, the Millennium Falcon on the $20's, the Death Star on the $100. Put planet landscapes on the reverse. Tatooine on the single, Nauboo on the five, Coruscant on the $100...
Think about it. Who doesn't like Star Wars?
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
This sounds like part of the war on cash, make it aesthetically repulsive and politically idiotic to thereby discourage its use.
Harriet Tubman is barely a footnote in American history, not a worthy subject in the slightest. About the best I can say is that at least she wasn't a professional politician.
This sounds like part of the war on cash, make it aesthetically repulsive and politically idiotic to thereby discourage its use.
+1
Let's put something on those bills that everyone in the world will recognize.
Star Wars spacecraft.
Think about it. Who doesn't like Star Wars?
Um . . . lots of Star Trek fans?
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
can't wait for the politically correct coins. Maybe we'll get a Jenner dime.
That would definitely put an END Cap on my Complete Dime Set!
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
I support the move.
She took enormous risks to help oppressed people become free. Not just once, but many times.
She wasn't born into her position. She didn't marry into it. Quite the opposite.
Her life story symbolizes what America stands for, or should stand for.
This isn't political correctness. It is honoring someone who deserves to be honored in this fashion.
I agree. She was an American patriot and a war hero (Union Army nurse before she was an armed Union Army spy). Glad it's her.
I think it's great. Interesting for sure
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
That's what should be on the $ 20 bill. The three biggest nitwits responsible for the U.S. dollar loosing 96 % of it's value, having their faces smacked blood red
by an Amazonian Lady Liberty .
Lewis
Lewis
We're talking about Andrew Jackson. The Trump comparison is eerie, and some Jackson $20 bills rubber stamped "Great Heroes of Real Estate -- Indian Removal Act of 1830" were made as a Shaun Slifer history exhibit in 2005 -- not as a present-day attempt to link Jackson and Trump.
Aside from the "Trail of Tears" where some 5,000 native Americans died during a forced march from the southeastern states to Oklahoma, Jackson owned some 300 slaves, and ran advertisements such as this when there was a runaway. "30 years old, six feet -one, talks sensible, remarkable large feet" The finder's $50 reward can be increased by $10 for every hundred lashes given to him - up to $300
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
I support the move.
She took enormous risks to help oppressed people become free. Not just once, but many times.
She wasn't born into her position. She didn't marry into it. Quite the opposite.
Her life story symbolizes what America stands for, or should stand for.
This isn't political correctness. It is honoring someone who deserves to be honored in this fashion.
Agreed. Thanks for putting it better than I could.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
BST transactions: dbldie55, jayPem, 78saen, UltraHighRelief, nibanny, liefgold, FallGuy, lkeigwin, mbogoman, Sandman70gt, keets, joeykoins, ianrussell (@GC), EagleEye, ThePennyLady, GRANDAM, Ilikecolor, Gluggo, okiedude, Voyageur, LJenkins11, fastfreddie, ms70, pursuitofliberty, ZoidMeister,Coin Finder, GotTheBug, edwardjulio, Coinnmore, Nickpatton, Namvet69,...
can't wait for the politically correct coins. Maybe we'll get a Jenner dime.
My YouTube Channel
I heard on the news this morning that Jackson was being moved to the reverse of the bill and NOT removed entirely.
Much like being forced to sit at the back of the bus.
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/gold/liberty-head-2-1-gold-major-sets/liberty-head-2-1-gold-basic-set-circulation-strikes-1840-1907-cac/alltimeset/268163
Leave our $$ alone~PLEASE!
Seems strange to me.
What a complete lack of interest by the US coin forum on whos face ends up on the $20.
Seems strange to me.
I disagree, there are over 120 posts.....that's a decent size thread.
Also, this is a coin forum, and not a currency forum.
Harriet Tubman...bravo for what she did, but I have not see one flattering image of her.
She resembles Oprah from her role in "The color purple"
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
Just hours after announcing that civil rights pioneer Harriet Tubman would replace Pres. Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill, the Treasury Department canceled the project after realizing it no longer has any money.
“After making the announcement honoring Ms. Tubman, we looked in the Treasury Department vault to figure out how many twenties we could afford to roll out,” said a high-level department official who asked to be identified as “Lou Jack.”
Tubman Cancelled
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
Apparently someone liked her looks as her slave master offered a reward for her and described her as "good looking".
The Mysterious Egyptian Magic Coin
Coins in Movies
Coins on Television
Treasury out of money, cancels Tubman on the $20
Just hours after announcing that civil rights pioneer Harriet Tubman would replace Pres. Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill, the Treasury Department canceled the project after realizing it no longer has any money.
“After making the announcement honoring Ms. Tubman, we looked in the Treasury Department vault to figure out how many twenties we could afford to roll out,” said a high-level department official who asked to be identified as “Lou Jack.”
Tubman Cancelled
We're out of money like......20 Trillion!
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
I wish Hillary was qualified to be on it......
HAHAHAHA
Hamilton's bank model was inspired by the Bank of England which was privately owned but bore the responsibility for bringing stability to the British banking system. Was Hamilton's model flawed? Yes. Private for-profit ownership of any portion of the bank should not have been part of the model.
British banking dynasties still exert some control over the US Federal Reserve, in contrast to what the American Revolution was all about.
Note that in 2002 the Queen of England knighted Alan Greenspan because of his "contribution to global economic stability". Where was all that "economic stability" six years later in 2008 ?
Follow the money trail because it is always about the money.
When times are tough, private bankers tend to pull in their horns, which is a prudent policy for a for-profit institution. That runs counter to the need to increase liquidity during an economic down turn. Conversely a for-profit bank tends to keep making loans during over heated economic expansions. At those times putting on the breaks is very much in order. The modern Federal Reserve turns a profit as a by-product of its operations, but that's not the purpose of the institution.
Why does the Federal Reserve always stringently argue against being audited ?
If they really were a benevolent not-for-profit organization, they would have nothing to hide and they wouldn't be so opposed to being audited.
When there is an economic downturn, and the central bank injects liquidity, who receives that liquidity ? Not you or I. That liquidity ALWAYS goes to the top. In 2008 when much of the economy was clamoring for a bailout, the vast majority of bailout funds went to the top financial institutions. Liquidity can be injected at all levels of the economy, not just at the top tier. The 2008 bailout could have gone, at least in part, to the people. That, would have had the effect of bolstering household balance sheets which, in turn, would have helped the mortgage-backed securities that were at the heart of the crisis.
Over time, enabled by central banks, debt structures become ever more precarious. Letting them collapse becomes more and more unpalatable, even though that is exactly what should be allowed to happen.
Iceland makes for an interesting case study. Rather than bail out their banks in 2008, the people took control and blocked that. Banks failed. Bankers were actually sent to prison. They suffered a severe economic recession, like the rest of the world. But their economy recovered after a couple years and they now better off for it and are doing well.
I suppose that "golden period" for you was the period between the end of the Civil War and 1913 when the Federal Reserve Banking System was created. During those years there was solid reform led by the National Bank Act, which resulted in "National Bank Notes," and the tax on privately issued bank notes, which ended that corrupt system. Before that, the largely unregulated state banks could issue paper in unlimited quantities if they wanted to, which ended in economic disaster for anyone who was holding currency from a defunct bank. During that "golden period" there were the Panics of 1873, 1893 and 1907 plus a mini panic when Jim Fisk and Jay Gould tried to corner the gold market.
As for going back on the gold standard, that concept is ludicrous. What will the gold price be? One hundred thousand dollars an ounce? A million dollars an ounce? A hundred million dollars an ounce? There is not enough gold in the world to support a meaningful gold standard for The United States or any other developed country.
And yes, the gold standard can artificially restrict the money supply which might or might not be appropriate. Why should monetary policy be controlled by the supply of a specific commodity? Why start a depression simply because the money supply has be controlled by the amount of gold a country has in its vaults at an arbitrary fixed price? That kind of thinking started the Panic of 1893.
I personally am not advocating a return to a "Gold Standard". But I am pointing out that significant debt-free economic growth can occur with a gold standard.
A privately-issued bank note is essentially a loan to that bank from a depositor (creditor). If you hold such a note, you are a creditor to that bank. But the bank doesn't pay any interest on that deposit. That is why they seek to do it that way. They issue circulating bank notes which don't pay any interest, but they charge interest when they loan out those bank notes. Free money to them.
It is always wise for any creditor to perform the proper due diligence and investigate the credit-worthiness of the entity that is being loaned to. This includes depositors who are essentially loaning money to a bank or other financial institution.
But as banks often do, the temptation to engage in Ponzi-like schemes is too strong to resist.
Issuing more bank notes than there are deposits is easy money, for a time. But a bad scheme will fail, with or without a gold standard and with or without a central bank.
I don't even know why you bring up Occupy Wall Street and the 99% bunch. Those people are simply socialists and anarchists who think that the world owes them a living. They are ignorant nihilists, most of whom don't even know how the old Soviet Union worked (or didn't work) with their Five Year Plans. They should be part of the lunatic fringe although it seems they are becoming the heart and soul of "progressive thought."
Thomas Jefferson which was in the most poorly informed of all the founding fathers on the subjects of business and economics. His idea of utopia was to have the majority of citizens, half starved, trying to scratch out a living on subsistence farms. His world only worked with slavery, which was why he was never able to give it up despite his high sounding principles. He knew nothing about banking and finance. The ending legacy of his presidency was the disastrous trade embargo that he imposed which created a domestic economic depression and did nothing to fix the problems we were have with the British and the French.
You previously indicated that "right wing people" believe that a central bank is not necessary.
You also stated that "Occupy Wall Street" and "99%" people are "socialists". Those groups tend to oppose central banking. That is why I brought it up, to illustrate your contradiction.
If things keep going in the direction they are now, eventually the only formation of capitol will be held solely by the central bank, and anyone wishing to embark on any endeavor will have to pay tribute (interest) to that central bank. It is an insidious mechanism to gain control over everyone. Thomas Jefferson summed it up:
"The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."
Pretty soon the "future" is all tapped out, and the debt structures, no matter how big and complex they have become, will fall.
One can certainly object to the policies that the modern Federal Reserve System has enacted over the years, but the need for a central bank is obvious to anyone who has seriously studied economic history.
No monetary standard works effectively when the bankers and politicians cheat on it. If you check your 19th century history you'll find that a "strict" and workable gold standard was rarely in effect. Most of the 19th century was bi-metalism, national bank notes, green backs, and other variations/abominations. Bankers printed and loaned out paper currency when they wanted to. Hard to blame anything on a gold standard when there really wasn't an effective and regulated standard. 1900-1913 was probably the only true classical US gold standard. And that was pre-empted by WW1, never to return again with all the original requirements intact. The period from 1919-1933 was a shell of the previous standard.
The price of gold is irrelevant in having a working standard. The vast majority of trade and commerce during an effective gold standard are done with real bills and other intermediary products. That's the way it worked. It's a common fallacy that huge piles of gold traded hands on every commercial and retail transaction. Read up on Dr. Antele Fekete if you want to understand how a gold standard works. And it's no secret that bankers are not fans of any monetary standard where there is strict accountability. Let's not even discuss the viability of a precious metal's standards when there is such malarky in our fiat money system such as the FED's fractional reserve money multiplier ratio where $1 can magically become up to $10. That's pure Ponzi. Like DCarr I'm not advocating a return to a gold standard, the horses left that barn long ago. Rather, I'm just pointing out the facts that it wasn't the standard that failed.....but the people in charge of it.
The big point that gets missed is that to get debt-free you would have to destroy the debt market - mortgages, credit cards, auto loans, college loans, etc.
I'm not saying debt is good, but our economy is built on it. It needs to be properly managed. Congress is to blame for not managing it properly. They refuse to balance the tax vs growth equation.
Poetic justice
But I am pointing out that significant debt-free economic growth can occur with a gold standard.
The big point that gets missed is that to get debt-free you would have to destroy the debt market - mortgages, credit cards, auto loans, college loans, etc.
I'm not saying debt is good, but our economy is built on it. It needs to be properly managed. Congress is to blame for not managing it properly. They refuse to balance the tax vs growth equation.
Our current economy is built entirely on a debt-based monetary system. But it wasn't always that way.
Debt-based systems will function reasonably well, so long as the population is ever increasing. But the human population can not continue to expand forever. Environmental resistance will limit it. The relatively recent changes in demographics (slowing birth rate in industrialized countries, for example) is a warning for the debt-based economy. I believe this is the real reason behind the lax immigration enforcement: more and more people are need to change the course of demographics, and to keep the debt structures from collapsing.
In other words, to keep the whole thing afloat, more and more people need to take on larger amounts of debt.
Peter Schiff talks student loans
Today, our leaders (Congress - they control the purse strings) want nothing to do with repaying the debt. When they say NO to tax increases, they are saying NO to debt servicing. No one likes taxes, but if you want the debt to go down, well, what else is available? Increasing the pool of taxable entities, as you suggest?
1. Abolish the IRS
2. Fire most of Congress
3. Institute a simple flat tax and everyone has some skin in the game.
I apologize for the profanity. I don't know how to edit it out.
That made me urinate in my pants and made the very expensive ale I was drinking come out of my nose. I'll send you an itemized bill. Address please?
Pretty soon the "future" is all tapped out, and the debt structures, no matter how big and complex they have become, will fall."
This is the same Thomas Jefferson who borrowed large sums of money to build and add on to Monticello. Part of that loan was still owed upon his death. The nation was blessed that Hamilton and not Jefferson was overseeing the monetary system in those days.
"The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."
Pretty soon the "future" is all tapped out, and the debt structures, no matter how big and complex they have become, will fall."
This is the same Thomas Jefferson who borrowed large sums of money to build and add on to Monticello. Part of that loan was still owed upon his death. The nation was blessed that Hamilton and not Jefferson was overseeing the monetary system in those days.
Yes, it is. So he ought to know - been there, done that.
In general, though, I take his quotes that I posted as referring to the public sector (government).
Regardless, he was right.
Would somebody post a picture of a coin
For what reason?....are you not capable of posting a coin image?
But for the reason that is so over the top off topic, even the ot police are posting
I disagree - Debt needs to be properly managed. After the huge increase in debt during WWII, it took until 1960 to pay down that debt increase. Tax rates were up to 90%! People understood that we have to repay our debts. They understood the reason for the WWII debt - freedom. They paid it. They wouldn't pay 90% today, I think.
Today, our leaders (Congress - they control the purse strings) want nothing to do with repaying the debt. When they say NO to tax increases, they are saying NO to debt servicing. No one likes taxes, but if you want the debt to go down, well, what else is available? Increasing the pool of taxable entities, as you suggest?
I've seen very few, if any, taxes advertised as having the purpose of "paying down debt".
North Dakota has the right idea. The state has no public debt and they operate a state-run bank for the benefit of citizens. They have cut out the middle man (Wall Street and commercial banks). They could do this because they never got too far in debt in the first place.
The Denver Public School (DPS) system got reamed by Goldman Sachs (GS) for $216 million dollars on credit default swaps (CDSs). DPS was in a tough spot because they got themselves into debt. GS comes in to save the day, by selling CDSs to DPS. But, in reality, GS had put lipstick on pigs, sold them to clients (such as DPS), and then behind the clients' backs GS slaughtered the pigs and ate them (by selling short on the very "securities" they had sold to clients). The City and County of Denver was forced to jack up real estate taxes to pay off GS on the losing CDS bet. The property tax increase was disguised by reassessing the values of the land (raising it significantly), while lowering the assessments on the actual buildings a little bit. Had DPS never gotten into debt in the first place, they wouldn't have been in a position to get taken to cleaners like this:
Denver Pays Wall Street $216 Million as Swaps Fail
WW2 was largely financed via extreme levels of taxes, and also by bond sales to the general public ($25 "war bonds" and the like). Funding was not sought in large part from financial institutions. The government certainly didn't bet on credit default swaps. The increase in Federal debt during WW2 was significant when measured as a percentage of GDP. But most of the GDP naturally went into the government's war effort. When measured in simple dollar terms, the increase in Federal debt wasn't really that much. At the time, people understood the need for sacrifice, and paid the high taxes.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
Great Britain Pound 2001
The Mysterious Egyptian Magic Coin
Coins in Movies
Coins on Television
Would somebody post a picture of a coin
It's kind of nonsensical, like the money we transact with. A deal is as good as the relationships built along the path of prosperity.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5