Topic: Why not just print dollars? - page 27. (Read 30063 times)
Bitcoin could be a new revolution or a new era of the "money". You can print or create everything you decide but it depends on how much it will cost or how much someone will give you.
Yeah, that has nothing to do with forbidding, save only for the fact that it essentially makes impossible to transact in cash over $10,000 on a regular basis. Feel the difference...
And the requirement to report is all-around (banks or no banks)
And the requirement to report is all-around (banks or no banks)
It is easy to transfer $10000 in bitcoin today. But when governments regulate bitcon transfer, the same limit might apply.
How will they limit? They only could do that on the connection lines to the regulated exchanges and businesses. Anything going on inside bitcoin might not be traceable to easily.
Think of bit-licences.
Even if all transactions are in bitcoin, they might make it compulsory for companies to limit / track transactions.
Most companies would like to stay on the right side of law and will comply with these regulations.
Yeah, that would be the connection lines to the normal businesses. Though inside bitcoin there is no control. You can send 100k USD to china via bitcoin and no one could know.
Depends on with who you trade i guess.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpW_KMHlAmo
Why borrow dollars and then pay back by printing them?
Why take the long way around?
so do you think you can make your own money,like you mining bitcoin?no its not same,bitcoin is undecentralize,different with Dollar.Why borrow dollars and then pay back by printing them?
Why take the long way around?
and bitcoin have no mark,but dollar have official mark from goverment.
Yeah, that has nothing to do with forbidding, save only for the fact that it essentially makes impossible to transact in cash over $10,000 on a regular basis. Feel the difference...
And the requirement to report is all-around (banks or no banks)
And the requirement to report is all-around (banks or no banks)
It is easy to transfer $10000 in bitcoin today. But when governments regulate bitcon transfer, the same limit might apply.
How will they limit? They only could do that on the connection lines to the regulated exchanges and businesses. Anything going on inside bitcoin might not be traceable to easily.
Think of bit-licences.
Even if all transactions are in bitcoin, they might make it compulsory for companies to limit / track transactions.
Most companies would like to stay on the right side of law and will comply with these regulations.
Yeah, that has nothing to do with forbidding, save only for the fact that it essentially makes impossible to transact in cash over $10,000 on a regular basis. Feel the difference...
And the requirement to report is all-around (banks or no banks)
And the requirement to report is all-around (banks or no banks)
It is easy to transfer $10000 in bitcoin today. But when governments regulate bitcon transfer, the same limit might apply.
How will they limit? They only could do that on the connection lines to the regulated exchanges and businesses. Anything going on inside bitcoin might not be traceable to easily.
IRS Form 8300 still applies strictly to transactions in the course of a trade or business transaction and has the giant exemption that excludes personal checks. It's not quite the case you're making it to be. Individuals who receive $10,000+ in cash for selling any item outside the course of business, receive a gift, or receive the money via a personal check do not have to file IRS Form 8300.
You seem to have forgotten what I started with
...companies (the major owners of the "digits on the computer") are not allowed to deal in cash
So my case is exactly that case, lol
Because the government wants to slow the inflation rate?
it seems that they have slowed down this year but there were some year where the inflation was very high, up to 7%
so yes they don't want hyperinflation, but they still want to print at will
For me, the fact that you can withdraw your money at any time means there is no loss of right to use your money
Okay, but what if the bank defaults (and there is no FDIC to pay you back), would (could) you lose your money?
Yes, this is a risk, but not a forfeiture of a right. There's a risk to hiding money in a mattress (theft, fire, etc.) and a risk to holding money in general (inflation), but risks are not forfeiture of rights. There's risk in everything you do with money, but I still distinguish between a risk of any action and the loss of a right to use your money. But if you're talking about risks of the banking system, I think I understand your point better. I just don't think it's accurate to describe that as a limitation of your rights.
My point is not about risk as you are seemingly trying to put it. When I say about the bank going bust (you losing money), I mean that you give up control of the money, i.e. transfer control over the money to the bank. It doesn't matter that you can reestablish that control any time. Indeed, you could also say that when you put money under the mattress you are also, in a sense, transferring control of it to the mattress. But in the latter case this has no legal consequences. You can't drag your dirty mattress to a court for squandering your shekels, lol...
I assume that leaving your car in a garage is not the same as renting it out (legally speaking)
Because the government wants to slow the inflation rate?
As I said, I am not into such matters. So, essentially, I don't know... Maybe, the right to use? Since you obviously can't use the money that you put in a bank while the bank can use it freely...
But you are entitled to your own opinion, of course
But you are entitled to your own opinion, of course
For me, the fact that you can withdraw your money at any time means there is no loss of right to use your money
Okay, but what if the bank defaults (and there is no FDIC to pay you back), would (could) you lose your money?
Yes, this is a risk, but not a forfeiture of a right. There's a risk to hiding money in a mattress (theft, fire, etc.) and a risk to holding money in general (inflation), but risks are not forfeiture of rights. There's risk in everything you do with money, but I still distinguish between a risk of any action and the loss of a right to use your money. But if you're talking about risks of the banking system, I think I understand your point better. I just don't think it's accurate to describe that as a limitation of your rights.
because if you were to print and reproduce dollars no matter how much the amount of dollars that have been spread across the world, then the dollar will only be a worthless waste paper 
the good point of bitcoin ... is that you can print paper money if you want : https://www.bitaddress.organd, it's real value !
You're right that bitcoin can't be printed when more is needed.
You're wrong that bitcoin has real value. The value is perceived because all of us place value upon it...just as we do fiat currency.
There is no tangible thing that supports the value of bitcoin, that can prove there is value to it.
There's no Gold, no Silver, no other tangible item that exists in the world...just the promise that only so much bitcoin can every be mined and that the validity of transactions and balances are verified by the community that uses it.
As I said, I am not into such matters. So, essentially, I don't know... Maybe, the right to use? Since you obviously can't use the money that you put in a bank while the bank can use it freely...
But you are entitled to your own opinion, of course
But you are entitled to your own opinion, of course
For me, the fact that you can withdraw your money at any time means there is no loss of right to use your money
Okay, but what if the bank defaults (and there is no FDIC to pay you back), would (could) you lose your money?
Deflation. Look at Venezuela fiat system for instance. Their fiat is worth less than the peso now.
Somebody posted a link and an image of what nearly half a btc would look like and there were stacks of Bolivar (their currency) that looked like a thousands of dollars but the paper it was printed on is worth more then the money itself.
Somebody posted a link and an image of what nearly half a btc would look like and there were stacks of Bolivar (their currency) that looked like a thousands of dollars but the paper it was printed on is worth more then the money itself.
I guess there are certain reasons they ain't printing that currency...
Also, based on what I know, it ain't in their own hands to print their currencies on their own based on their decisions...
FED ain't a private entity, and it's the US treasury that prints the $$$, and not the FED...
Also, based on what I know, it ain't in their own hands to print their currencies on their own based on their decisions...
FED ain't a private entity, and it's the US treasury that prints the $$$, and not the FED...
I think that the more they print dollars the more they create their own debts and the value of the dollar will keep decreasing. They've already dug a deep hole of debts already.
If things continue this way, the dollar won't be worth much even when they are printing more and more.
That's true, but the way they are going, I guess they are much more interested in getting into debts but printing more and more money to just fill their pockets anyhow...
In the end, it's people who will pay for all "their" deeds...
No, you don't get it. In America, it doesn't work that way. It's possible it does in Russia, I don't know, that's why I'm allowing for the possibility that it does and speaking only to the banking system in America. In practice, the bank does not own your money. Custody and ownership are two different things. You grant the bank custody of your money when you deposit it, but the bank has zero claim to ownership. Custody is synonymous to control, granting the bank the power to control the money (therefore, lend it out), but it grants the bank absolutely zero rights to claim ownership to the money. The depositor owns the money, always and forever. End of story. Anything else is not true. A bank deposit is not like a retail transaction. You do not buy anything. You do not give up rights to your money. Any analogy trying to liken the two is not applicable. Any assertion that by depositing money you give up your rights to redeem it on demand is categorically false. The bank has the right to lend it out, and you have the right to withdraw it without notice, and the bank must comply. These two ideas are not mutually exclusive. Because you can withdraw your money at any time, you have waived no rights.
Lol, you are now claiming that the laws of logic are not working in America? I'm not very well versed in legal matters (especially those of the Anglo-American legal system, wtf), but as far as I'm acquainted with the question in general, the concept of ownership is not atomic. It means that it can be subdivided into the requisite component parts (e.g., the right to use, the right to possess, etc). It is obvious that by depositing the money in a bank you don't waive all the rights (since otherwise you wouldn't be able to claim your money back), but necessarily some of them...
That's why these two ideas are not mutually exclusive
What right is it, exactly then, that is waived? If you have waived a right, you can identify specifically what right you have waived.
As I said, I am not into such matters. So, essentially, I don't know... Maybe, the right to use? Since you obviously can't use the money that you put in a bank while the bank can use it freely...
But you are entitled to your own opinion, of course
For me, the fact that you can withdraw your money at any time means there is no loss of right to use your money. Unless you're talking about opportunity costs of using banks, as in putting your money in a bank means you can't put it in your mattress. Needing to go retrieve the money from the bank isn't the loss of a "right."
The requirement is on financial institutions and MSBs (money services businesses) in America. It does not apply to individuals. If I sell something for $10,000 cash, I have no obligation to report this on a CTR (currency transaction report), but taxes are another thing. If I deposit $10,000 in a bank, the bank has to file a CTR. If I make several deposits that make it clear I'm attempting to avoid the $10,000 threshold to avoid a CTR, the bank has to file a SAR (suspicious activity report). In some instances, the threshold is $3,000, but for these instances, the MSB just has to record the information and save it for five years, not necessarily file a CTR unless it becomes clear that the activity is being structured to avoid the CTR threshold.
Wtf, it seems that now I know about the US money laws more than you do...
Quote
Each person engaged in a trade or business who, in the course of that trade or business, receives more than $10,000 in cash in one transaction or in two or more related transactions, must file Form 830
Posting the link once again
I stand corrected. I amend my statement to say that the BSA applies to financial institutions, and CTRs are still strictly the purview of banks and not individuals. IRS Form 8300 still applies strictly to transactions in the course of a trade or business transaction and has the giant exemption that excludes personal checks. It's not quite the case you're making it to be. Individuals who receive $10,000+ in cash for selling any item outside the course of business, receive a gift, or receive the money via a personal check do not have to file IRS Form 8300.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpW_KMHlAmo
Why borrow dollars and then pay back by printing them?
Why take the long way around?
Why borrow dollars and then pay back by printing them?
Why take the long way around?
Sometimes we like the long way around....lol.
The requirement is on financial institutions and MSBs (money services businesses) in America. It does not apply to individuals. If I sell something for $10,000 cash, I have no obligation to report this on a CTR (currency transaction report), but taxes are another thing. If I deposit $10,000 in a bank, the bank has to file a CTR. If I make several deposits that make it clear I'm attempting to avoid the $10,000 threshold to avoid a CTR, the bank has to file a SAR (suspicious activity report). In some instances, the threshold is $3,000, but for these instances, the MSB just has to record the information and save it for five years, not necessarily file a CTR unless it becomes clear that the activity is being structured to avoid the CTR threshold.
Wtf, it seems that now I know about the US money laws more than you do...
Quote
Each person engaged in a trade or business who, in the course of that trade or business, receives more than $10,000 in cash in one transaction or in two or more related transactions, must file Form 830
Posting the link once again
No, you don't get it. In America, it doesn't work that way. It's possible it does in Russia, I don't know, that's why I'm allowing for the possibility that it does and speaking only to the banking system in America. In practice, the bank does not own your money. Custody and ownership are two different things. You grant the bank custody of your money when you deposit it, but the bank has zero claim to ownership. Custody is synonymous to control, granting the bank the power to control the money (therefore, lend it out), but it grants the bank absolutely zero rights to claim ownership to the money. The depositor owns the money, always and forever. End of story. Anything else is not true. A bank deposit is not like a retail transaction. You do not buy anything. You do not give up rights to your money. Any analogy trying to liken the two is not applicable. Any assertion that by depositing money you give up your rights to redeem it on demand is categorically false. The bank has the right to lend it out, and you have the right to withdraw it without notice, and the bank must comply. These two ideas are not mutually exclusive. Because you can withdraw your money at any time, you have waived no rights.
Lol, you are now claiming that the laws of logic are not working in America? I'm not very well versed in legal matters (especially those of the Anglo-American legal system, wtf), but as far as I'm acquainted with the question in general, the concept of ownership is not atomic. It means that it can be subdivided into the requisite component parts (e.g., the right to use, the right to possess, etc). It is obvious that by depositing the money in a bank you don't waive all the rights (since otherwise you wouldn't be able to claim your money back), but necessarily some of them...
That's why these two ideas are not mutually exclusive
What right is it, exactly then, that is waived? If you have waived a right, you can identify specifically what right you have waived.
As I said, I am not into such matters. So, essentially, I don't know... Maybe, the right to use? Since you obviously can't use the money that you put in a bank while the bank can use it freely...
But you are entitled to your own opinion, of course
Jump to: