17 Feb 11
Some states are kicking around the idea of printing their own currency. I doubt the Fed wants competition so what are the chances of it happening?
http://www.boston.com/news/source/2011/02/_reuters_lee_ja.html
I think it is a good idea. I just doubt the powers that be would let it happen without a fight. What do you think?
17 Feb 11
Originally posted by Metal BrainA) Unconstitutional;
Some states are kicking around the idea of printing their own currency. I doubt the Fed wants competition so what are the chances of it happening?
http://www.boston.com/news/source/2011/02/_reuters_lee_ja.html
I think it is a good idea. I just doubt the powers that be would let it happen without a fight. What do you think?
B) A rather stupid way to fight "hyperinflation".
17 Feb 11
Originally posted by no1marauderUnconstitutional?
A) Unconstitutional;
B) A rather stupid way to fight "hyperinflation".
What about the era of free banking? Why was that allowed to happen if it was unconstitutional? The FRS itself is arguably unconstitutional so what does it matter anyways?
How can a competing currency with a better control on money supply be a stupid way to fight hyperinflation? Seems to me that the FRS's monopoly on the issuance of money is exactly the reason hyperinflation happens.
Competition is what capitalism is all about. Aren't you being unamerican?
17 Feb 11
Originally posted by Metal BrainCapitalism is all about individual states printing money? Having each State print its own money would vastly increase the money supply without any increase in productive capacity. Guess what the result of that would be?
Unconstitutional?
What about the era of free banking? Why was that allowed to happen if it was unconstitutional? The FRS itself is arguably unconstitutional so what does it matter anyways?
How can a competing currency with a better control on money supply be a stupid way to fight hyperinflation? Seems to me that the FRS's monopoly on the issuance of ...[text shortened]... nflation happens.
Competition is what capitalism is all about. Aren't you being unamerican?
Yes, it's blatantly unconstitutional. See Article I, Section 10 of the US Constitution.
17 Feb 11
Originally posted by Metal BrainWhy do you think it's a good idea?
Some states are kicking around the idea of printing their own currency. I doubt the Fed wants competition so what are the chances of it happening?
http://www.boston.com/news/source/2011/02/_reuters_lee_ja.html
I think it is a good idea. I just doubt the powers that be would let it happen without a fight. What do you think?
I'm also wondering who are these many widely recognized experts who predict the "inevitable" end of the Federal Reserve System in the "foreseeable future". I'd like to have a peek at their crystal balls.
17 Feb 11
Originally posted by Metal BrainYes, an excellent idea, because as we all know having different currencies would be super beneficial to interstate trade.
Some states are kicking around the idea of printing their own currency. I doubt the Fed wants competition so what are the chances of it happening?
http://www.boston.com/news/source/2011/02/_reuters_lee_ja.html
I think it is a good idea. I just doubt the powers that be would let it happen without a fight. What do you think?
17 Feb 11
Maybe I'm getting lost in all the "Whereas's", but it looks like they're talking about putting a plan in place to use gold and silver as currency, only "in the event" of a breakdown of the Federal Reserve System, not to start "competing" with the Federal Reserve just for the hell of it.
What do all you legal eagles think of these two little snips?
Whereas, under Title 31, United States Code, Section 5118(d)(2), and Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 and Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of, and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to, the Constitution of the United States, Americans may employ whatever currency they choose to stipulate as the medium for payment of their private debts, including gold or silver, or both, to the exclusion of a currency not redeemable in gold or silver that Congress may have designated "legal tender"; and
Whereas, under Title 31, United States Code, Section 5118(d)(2), and Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 and Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of, and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to, the Constitution of the United States, the citizens of South Carolina may choose to employ as the medium for payment of their private debts whatever alternative currency, consisting of gold or silver, or both, that the State may adopt in the exercise of "the police power"; and
Are those true statements?
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess119_2011-2012/bills/500.htm
17 Feb 11
Originally posted by PalynkaI think 2 currencies issued by different competing banks would be good for the consumer. One could be backed by gold and silver to reduce the fear of inflation and the other can be Federal Reserve Notes.
Why do you think it's a good idea?
I'm also wondering who are these many widely recognized experts who predict the "inevitable" end of the Federal Reserve System in the "foreseeable future". I'd like to have a peek at their crystal balls.
I don't want several different currencies issued by each state necessarily, but if one state starting it is what it takes to end the fed's monopoly on the issuance of money then that is fine with me. It must start somewhere.
I don't see an end to the fed until another American currency is available. I suspect that competition with the fed would force the fed to control it's money supply or fail. That would give incentive to the fed to stop creating inflation to tax Americans too much.
If the competing currency were on the national level like the fed and all businesses accepted both currencies everybody would win but the fed. The consumer would be able to chose the currency with the lower inflation rate.
17 Feb 11
Originally posted by no1marauderWe already have other currencies but they are confined to small communities. If it is unconstitutional why is it going on as we speak?
Capitalism is all about individual states printing money? Having each State print its own money would vastly increase the money supply without any increase in productive capacity. Guess what the result of that would be?
Yes, it's blatantly unconstitutional. See Article I, Section 10 of the US Constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_community_currencies_in_the_United_States
I want a competing currency on the national level if possible but I realize it might have to start at the state level first.
18 Feb 11
Originally posted by Metal BrainBecause those are voluntary and not legal tender.
We already have other currencies but they are confined to small communities. If it is unconstitutional why is it going on as we speak?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_community_currencies_in_the_United_States
I want a competing currency on the national level if possible but I realize it might have to start at the state level first.
18 Feb 11
Originally posted by SleepyguyOf course not; it's a crackpot, Metal Brainian interpretation of rather clear provisions barring states from doing exactly what these right wing nuts propose.
Maybe I'm getting lost in all the "Whereas's", but it looks like they're talking about putting a plan in place to use gold and silver as currency, only "in the event" of a breakdown of the Federal Reserve System, not to start "competing" with the Federal Reserve just for the hell of it.
What do all you legal eagles think of these two little snips?
[q ...[text shortened]... ose true statements?
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess119_2011-2012/bills/500.htm
Here's the statute referenced: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/31/IV/51/II/5118
If you find anything that modifies the express provision in Article I, Section 10 banning States from creating their own currency, your eyesight is way better than mine.
18 Feb 11
Originally posted by no1marauderA 2nd national (competitive) currency would also be voluntary, so what is the problem?
Because those are voluntary and not legal tender.
I mentioned to you before the free banking era but apparently you did not look into it. Back then the states had banks that issued currency. Many of those banks failed because they did not truly back their bank notes with gold like they claimed. Many of those were called wildcat banks. Probably because of bank notes that had a wildcat on the currency here in my state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildcat_banking
If it really is unconstitutional as you claim why was is normal during the free banking era? Apparently it was considered constitutional back then. Are you just making up this stuff as you go along?
18 Feb 11
Originally posted by Metal BrainI think no1 is claiming that a competing currency which would also be legal tender is unconstitutional. I don't think anyone is objecting to the existence of World of Warcraft currency.
A 2nd national (competitive) currency would also be voluntary, so what is the problem?
I mentioned to you before the free banking era but apparently you did not look into it. Back then the states had banks that issued currency. Many of those banks failed because they did not truly back their bank notes with gold like they claimed. Many of those were c ...[text shortened]... y it was considered constitutional back then. Are you just making up this stuff as you go along?