Thread: Doesn't it seem like the American people work for the banks?

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Don't call me a bot and a troll then play the victim card.

I was honestly accusing you of trolling, and not just trying to insult you.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

You stated that fiat currency cannot be backed by anything yet bank notes are fiat and they are backed by gold that was held within bank accounts. Therefore you can have a fiat currency that IS backed by a commodity. If you are confused just go back to the quote I used to respond to about this topic. The dollar was once back by gold but it is no longer. Legal tender laws have been in place for decades even before the U.S. dollar went off the "gold standard" (if it can even be called such). So you have a dilemma. You stated:
"The definition of a fiat currency is one that is not backed by any commodity. "
The dollar was back by gold.
The dollar is legal tender and has been for some time.
The dollar is fiat currency.
Therefore, your definition sucks.

Under a gold standard, a bank note is not fiat currency, it is a representative currency.

What Was The Gold Standard?
A look at what the gold standard was and how it differs from the fiat system


Gold standard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Richard Nixon to end the direct convertibility of the dollar to gold on August ... at which time nearly all nations had switched to full fiat money.

My Definition doesn't suck. It is the actual definition of a fiat currency.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

The fact that money is created by printing and lent out by the Federal Reserve is not a criticism against the idea that fiat money does not necessitate an ever increasing supply (inflation). The inflation experienced by the Federal Reserve on the U.S. money supply is not a natural inclination, it is an artificial influence. The point of my argument was that contra as to your thinking, fiat money is not naturally inflating. It can be static.

About all there is left to say is, no it can't. Reread my posts and read some of the information that I have supplied to you in order to understand why this is true.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

When money is repaid on a loan then that money is presented back out into the populace as another loan as long as the loaning bank meets Federal Reserve reserve limited which usually are around 10%. Meaning that every bank has to withhold that amount of funds within their vaults. All other funds are presented back out in the market place and multiple titles are given concerning loans and savings. My account balance may say I have 100 dollars in my bank account but the bank doesn't necessarily have that 100 dollars in their holdings. That is how fractional reserve banking works.

What is your point? The bank's money also comes from a loan, which they in turn have to repay. If the interest rates are higher, then more of their capital goes to paying interest rates on the loans that they have and they are able to take out less in new loans which lowers the amount of capital that they have to loan against out to the the public, thus lowering the money supply.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

And what use are laws if people don't follow them? Bernanke holds power because and is motivated by his ideas. Laws and mandates don't mean anything if people don't latch onto the ideas. It is the same with governments. The ruled always outnumber the rulers so they must justify their rule in order to gain widespread acceptance. This whole little aside happened because you said the example in the article isn't "the real world."

I don't know, what use are laws if people don't follow them? Again, what's your point? What are laws if people don't enforce them? Nothing. In the real world (as of now) though, people do enforce and follow laws. Those two facts are what motivate and allow Ben Bernanke and the other board members of the federal reserve to act. (Hence the name, Federal Reserve Act)

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Under a gold standard, a bank note is not fiat currency, it is a representative currency.

This is ridiculous. Bank notes meet all the criteria of what you label "fiat currency" except for one which is legal tender laws related which only came after the civil war period and which was never fully resolved until the mid 20th century. So because it's not legal tender then it isn't fiat? Preposterous. You're just looking for a new angle to move away from the main point of this conversation. You are also trying to skirt out of calling the dollar fiat currency while it was back by commodity. So what is your conviction? That the dollar wasn't fiat currency until it came off the international standard in the 70's?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

About all there is left to say is, no it can't. Reread my posts and read some of the information that I have supplied to you in order to understand why this is true.

I have shown you through a hypothetical example that it can. Whether people follow the example "in the real world" does not show its validity or invalidity. A static pool of money can exist without inflation.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

What is your point? The bank's money also comes from a loan, which they in turn have to repay. If the interest rates are higher, then more of their capital goes to paying interest rates on the loans that they have and they are able to take out less in new loans which lowers the amount of capital that they have to loan against out to the the public, thus lowering the money supply.

Paying off debts doesn't "lower the money supply." If I were to pay off my student loans now then that doesn't mean that money ceases to exist. Its just transferred from one party to another.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I don't know, what use are laws if people don't follow them? Again, what's your point? What are laws if people don't enforce them? Nothing. In the real world (as of now) though, people do enforce and follow laws. Those two facts are what motivate and allow Ben Bernanke and the other board members of the federal reserve to act. (Hence the name, Federal Reserve Act)

Again, this whole segway started because you said the example in the article I linked wasn't "the real world" because it assumed that a lender was a real person. You said that the Federal Reserve wasn't a real person, which is a true fact, but the Federal Reserve, the institution, is not a lender. The "real" lenders are the board therefore they are real people. This is actually assuming that the Federal Reserve is what loans people money which it doesn't. It loans money to banks and banks themselves loan it to people for things like mortgages or loans.

Laughing Man, just read the sources that I handed to you. I honestly don't know why you are continuing this argument; everything you say has already been refuted by me and the sources that I listed; I even quoted the bits that directly contradict you nearly word for word. I know your self image has you thinking that you know what you are talking about but you really don't. Again, just read the sources. They explain in plain language the difference between fiat money and representative money, they outline exactly when the U.S. and most of the rest of the world switched from representative gold and silver notes to fiat currency, and I'm sure somewhere in there fractional lending is explained as well (if not, I would be more than happy to explain it to you again as well as cite as many sources as you need to understand it.)

I really let this go on for far too long. We are both wasting our time here. Do some reading and learn something instead of just trying to "win" an internet argument. No matter how many rhetorical shenanigans you try to pull, you still won't convince anyone that you are right when you are clearly and obviously wrong. Just accept that (its okay to be wrong) and learn from the experience.

I hereby declare "you're clearly wrong, just accept it!" the greatest cop-out ever.

beware of energy vamps

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I hereby declare "you're clearly wrong, just accept it!" the greatest cop-out ever.

You can read over the posts and decide for yourself what is right. When someone is arguing against the definition of a word that has been proved through a variety of sources, there is not much else to say.

Unless of course, you like to add something of substance to the conversation.