Why not just print dollars? - page 28.

jaysabi

legendary

Activity: 2044

Merit: 1115

★777Coin.com★ Fun BTC Casino!

Quote from: deisik on December 24, 2015, 10:53:15 AM

Quote from: jaysabi on December 24, 2015, 09:42:26 AM

Quote from: deisik on December 21, 2015, 02:55:17 AM

Quote from: jaysabi on December 20, 2015, 09:36:34 PM

Ah, ok. I didn't realize that you were from Russia. That makes a big difference. I believe that in America there are no laws dictating cash transactions, it's just impractical to conduct business on a large scale in cash or any method that is not electronic.

As it turned out, the limits on cash payments are not set directly in the US, but I can't fancy any company (let alone large corporation) doing cash transactions on a regular basis, wtf. And the laws are still there, though...

Since you are obliged to report about any transaction in cash exceeding $10,000 to the IRS and FinCEN

Banks are required to report transactions. That has nothing to do with forbidding. There is no law forbidding cash transactions. It's only not done because it's impractical to deal with physical cash in most business situations.

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)

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.

jaysabi

legendary

Activity: 2044

Merit: 1115

★777Coin.com★ Fun BTC Casino!

Quote from: deisik on December 24, 2015, 10:48:32 AM

Quote from: jaysabi on December 24, 2015, 09:39:08 AM

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.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: jaysabi on December 24, 2015, 09:42:26 AM

Quote from: deisik on December 21, 2015, 02:55:17 AM

Quote from: jaysabi on December 20, 2015, 09:36:34 PM

Ah, ok. I didn't realize that you were from Russia. That makes a big difference. I believe that in America there are no laws dictating cash transactions, it's just impractical to conduct business on a large scale in cash or any method that is not electronic.

As it turned out, the limits on cash payments are not set directly in the US, but I can't fancy any company (let alone large corporation) doing cash transactions on a regular basis, wtf. And the laws are still there, though...

Since you are obliged to report about any transaction in cash exceeding $10,000 to the IRS and FinCEN

Banks are required to report transactions. That has nothing to do with forbidding. There is no law forbidding cash transactions. It's only not done because it's impractical to deal with physical cash in most business situations.

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)

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: jaysabi on December 24, 2015, 09:39:08 AM

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

jaysabi

legendary

Activity: 2044

Merit: 1115

★777Coin.com★ Fun BTC Casino!

Quote from: deisik on December 21, 2015, 02:55:17 AM

Quote from: jaysabi on December 20, 2015, 09:36:34 PM

Ah, ok. I didn't realize that you were from Russia. That makes a big difference. I believe that in America there are no laws dictating cash transactions, it's just impractical to conduct business on a large scale in cash or any method that is not electronic.

As it turned out, the limits on cash payments are not set directly in the US, but I can't fancy any company (let alone large corporation) doing cash transactions on a regular basis, wtf. And the laws are still there, though...

Since you are obliged to report about any transaction in cash exceeding $10,000 to the IRS and FinCEN

Banks are required to report transactions. That has nothing to do with forbidding. There is no law forbidding cash transactions. It's only not done because it's impractical to deal with physical cash in most business situations.

jaysabi

legendary

Activity: 2044

Merit: 1115

★777Coin.com★ Fun BTC Casino!

Quote from: deisik on December 21, 2015, 02:31:17 AM

Quote from: jaysabi on December 20, 2015, 09:45:46 PM

I don't know if this is another difference between the US/Russian system, but the issues you discuss are not the case in America. Deposits are not property of the bank, they always 100% belong to the depositor, whether it is a simple savings account or a term deposit instrument. Even in term deposits, you are not forbidden from withdrawing, there is just usually some sort of financial penalty, like forfeiting so many months of interest or paying a withdrawal fee, but in no instance I am aware of is a bank permitted to deny a withdrawal

You don't get it. What I say is not dependent on jurisdiction, fundamentally. If banks can actually loan out the money (which they do) they took from their clients (i.e. your money), the clients should necessarily waive at least some of their rights to that money. Otherwise, banks loaning out their clients money would be violating these rights...

But we don't see any banks sued for doing just this

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.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: jaysabi on December 20, 2015, 09:36:34 PM

Ah, ok. I didn't realize that you were from Russia. That makes a big difference. I believe that in America there are no laws dictating cash transactions, it's just impractical to conduct business on a large scale in cash or any method that is not electronic.

As it turned out, the limits on cash payments are not set directly in the US, but I can't fancy any company (let alone large corporation) doing cash transactions on a regular basis, wtf. And the laws are still there, though...

Since you are obliged to report about any transaction in cash exceeding $10,000 to the IRS and FinCEN

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: jaysabi on December 20, 2015, 09:45:46 PM

And no, banks do not have to "own" the money to be able to loan it. People can withdraw their deposits whenever they want, whether or not it's been loaned out. Banks cannot deny withdrawals because they loaned the money out. If there's a run on deposits, banks are forced to call the loans to be able to redeem deposits, or are forced to raise capital another way through borrowing or selling bonds. But the bottom line is you cede no rights to money you deposit, and this key fact is what makes people trust banks. (Again, whether it works like this in Russia I can't say, but it works this way in America.)

As I said before, when you put your money in a bank, you're essentially buying a claim on this money, ceding the rights to the money itself to the bank. To better understand this, consider an alternative scenario when a bank makes a loan from its own capital (so that it's the bank's own money)...

Does it cede the ownership of the money to the borrower?

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: jaysabi on December 20, 2015, 09:45:46 PM

I don't know if this is another difference between the US/Russian system, but the issues you discuss are not the case in America. Deposits are not property of the bank, they always 100% belong to the depositor, whether it is a simple savings account or a term deposit instrument. Even in term deposits, you are not forbidden from withdrawing, there is just usually some sort of financial penalty, like forfeiting so many months of interest or paying a withdrawal fee, but in no instance I am aware of is a bank permitted to deny a withdrawal

You don't get it. What I say is not dependent on jurisdiction, fundamentally. If banks can actually loan out the money (which they do) they took from their clients (i.e. your money), the clients should necessarily waive at least some of their rights to that money. Otherwise, banks loaning out their clients money would be violating these rights...

But we don't see any banks sued for doing just this

jaysabi

legendary

Activity: 2044

Merit: 1115

★777Coin.com★ Fun BTC Casino!

Quote from: deisik on December 20, 2015, 03:25:05 PM

Quote from: jaysabi on December 20, 2015, 02:54:25 PM

Ownership always remains with the depositor. It is always yours, and it is withdrawalable on demand. You grant the bank custody of the money, but that doesn't change the ownership.

Not necessarily. If you open a term deposit, it may not be withdrawalable on demand (this depends on jurisdiction, though). That essentially means that you don't own the money for the term of the deposit, since you evidently can't control it during that period. Furthermore, if we are talking about current accounts (or deposits withdrawalable on demand), and you preserve full rights over the money you put there, banks wouldn't be able to issue loans with that money, right? But given that they are, nevertheless, able to do it quite legitimately and lawfully, you necessarily give up some rights over the money. Ultimately, this is irrelevant since we are arguing over insignificant legal details...

Economically, this is still the same claim-liability relationship

I don't know if this is another difference between the US/Russian system, but the issues you discuss are not the case in America. Deposits are not property of the bank, they always 100% belong to the depositor, whether it is a simple savings account or a term deposit instrument. Even in term deposits, you are not forbidden from withdrawing, there is just usually some sort of financial penalty, like forfeiting so many months of interest or paying a withdrawal fee, but in no instance I am aware of is a bank permitted to deny a withdrawal.

And no, banks do not have to "own" the money to be able to loan it. People can withdraw their deposits whenever they want, whether or not it's been loaned out. Banks cannot deny withdrawals because they loaned the money out. If there's a run on deposits, banks are forced to call the loans to be able to redeem deposits, or are forced to raise capital another way through borrowing or selling bonds. But the bottom line is you cede no rights to money you deposit, and this key fact is what makes people trust banks. (Again, whether it works like this in Russia I can't say, but it works this way in America.)

jaysabi

legendary

Activity: 2044

Merit: 1115

★777Coin.com★ Fun BTC Casino!

Quote from: deisik on December 20, 2015, 03:21:51 PM

Quote from: jaysabi on December 20, 2015, 02:45:20 PM

Quote from: deisik on December 19, 2015, 05:50:11 AM

Quote from: orryde on December 18, 2015, 05:07:41 PM

This post is interesting because it brings up an important point.
In the United States 97% of money is generated through fractional reserve banking, this means that only 3% of money is cash.

So if everyone in the United States demanded their money in cash, this would reveal the truth. There simply isn't enough cold hard cash, to back up the digits on the computer.

If that were to be the case, the Central Bank (which is the Fed in the case of the US) would just print the required amount of cash. But it is simply impossible per se because companies (the major owners of the "digits on the computer") are not allowed to deal in cash (down to a very small limit for retailers). The truth is that the term itself ("fractional reserve banking") is a misnomer...

Since it shifts focus from the important to the insignificant

Is it that they are not allowed to deal in cash, or they just don't as a matter of practicality? I've never heard this before. Can you point me towards a source for further reading?

I don't know which the US rules limit the turnover of cash for the US companies, but here, in Russia, the cash turnover limits are set by the Russian Central Bank (Note 3073 as of October 7, 2013). That Note says, in particular, that all payments in cash between companies should be limited up to 100,000 roubles (i.e. about $1,400)

Ah, ok. I didn't realize that you were from Russia. That makes a big difference. I believe that in America there are no laws dictating cash transactions, it's just impractical to conduct business on a large scale in cash or any method that is not electronic.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: jaysabi on December 20, 2015, 02:45:20 PM

Is it that they are not allowed to deal in cash, or they just don't as a matter of practicality? I've never heard this before. Can you point me towards a source for further reading?

Regarding payments in cash in the US, I have found this document (Form 8300). Essentially, it means that any person in a trade or business who receives more than $10,000 in cash in a single transaction must complete the form, which is issued by the IRS and FinCEN. Obviously, it is used to track individuals evading taxes or pursuing criminal activities. Or those whom the authorities will deem as such, lol...

Needless to say that filling up such a form is a hell of a job (a form for every transaction, wow), thereby effectively canceling out payments in cash over $10,000 in the US

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: jaysabi on December 20, 2015, 02:54:25 PM

Ownership always remains with the depositor. It is always yours, and it is withdrawalable on demand. You grant the bank custody of the money, but that doesn't change the ownership.

Not necessarily. If you open a term deposit, it may not be withdrawalable on demand (this depends on jurisdiction, though). That essentially means that you don't own the money for the term of the deposit, since you evidently can't control it during that period. Furthermore, if we are talking about current accounts (or deposits withdrawalable on demand), and you preserve full rights over the money you put there, banks wouldn't be able to issue loans with that money, right? But given that they are, nevertheless, able to do it quite legitimately and lawfully, you necessarily give up some rights over the money. Ultimately, this is irrelevant since we are arguing over insignificant legal details...

Economically, this is still the same claim-liability relationship

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: jaysabi on December 20, 2015, 02:45:20 PM

Quote from: deisik on December 19, 2015, 05:50:11 AM

Quote from: orryde on December 18, 2015, 05:07:41 PM

This post is interesting because it brings up an important point.
In the United States 97% of money is generated through fractional reserve banking, this means that only 3% of money is cash.

So if everyone in the United States demanded their money in cash, this would reveal the truth. There simply isn't enough cold hard cash, to back up the digits on the computer.

If that were to be the case, the Central Bank (which is the Fed in the case of the US) would just print the required amount of cash. But it is simply impossible per se because companies (the major owners of the "digits on the computer") are not allowed to deal in cash (down to a very small limit for retailers). The truth is that the term itself ("fractional reserve banking") is a misnomer...

Since it shifts focus from the important to the insignificant

Is it that they are not allowed to deal in cash, or they just don't as a matter of practicality? I've never heard this before. Can you point me towards a source for further reading?

I don't know which the US rules limit the turnover of cash for the US companies, but here, in Russia, the cash turnover limits are set by the Russian Central Bank (Note 3073 as of October 7, 2013). That Note says, in particular, that all payments in cash between companies should be limited up to 100,000 roubles (i.e. about $1,400)

jaysabi

legendary

Activity: 2044

Merit: 1115

★777Coin.com★ Fun BTC Casino!

Quote from: deisik on December 20, 2015, 10:27:42 AM

Quote from: Amph on December 20, 2015, 10:02:16 AM

Quote from: deisik on December 20, 2015, 09:46:02 AM

Quote from: Amph on December 20, 2015, 06:37:07 AM

i think you didn't grasp my example, that guy asking what do do and the other responding in that way, it's like they can do whatever they want with your money

But this is obviously not the same as printing new money (which wouldn't be either mine or yours) by just adding up to the numbers, right? Or is it the same for you?

Are you really that dense?

no obvious i was talking merely how they can modify your funds without you, not even knowing about it

Wtf, I thought it was no secret that they take your money and lend it out as theirs (in fact, they don't even need it to issue a loan, wow). Strictly speaking, after you put your money in a bank, it is no longer yours (you get a claim on this money in return), therefore they are essentially free in disposing of it as they see appropriate...

Is this something of an eye-opener to you?

Ownership always remains with the depositor. It is always yours, and it is withdrawalable on demand. You grant the bank custody of the money, but that doesn't change the ownership.

Amph

legendary

Activity: 3248

Merit: 1070

Quote from: deisik on December 20, 2015, 01:19:18 PM

Quote from: Amph on December 20, 2015, 01:04:54 PM

Quote from: deisik on December 20, 2015, 10:27:42 AM

Quote from: Amph on December 20, 2015, 10:02:16 AM

Quote from: deisik on December 20, 2015, 09:46:02 AM

Quote from: Amph on December 20, 2015, 06:37:07 AM

i think you didn't grasp my example, that guy asking what do do and the other responding in that way, it's like they can do whatever they want with your money

But this is obviously not the same as printing new money (which wouldn't be either mine or yours) by just adding up to the numbers, right? Or is it the same for you?

Are you really that dense?

no obvious i was talking merely how they can modify your funds without you, not even knowing about it

Wtf, I thought it was no secret that they take your money and lend it out as theirs (in fact, they don't even need it to issue a loan, wow). Strictly speaking, after you put your money in a bank, it is no longer yours (you get a claim on this money in return), therefore they are essentially free in disposing of it as they see appropriate...

Is this something of an eye-opener to you?

the fact that is no secret does not mean that is legit, and that they can deplete your funds at will, so in theory the banks are the worst and unsecure storage ever

How's that's not legit? If you buy something for your money, you are losing any rights on it, right? It is no longer your money. I assume this is beyond argument. When you open a deposit account (for the sake of simplicity), you are essentially doing the same, i.e. buying a claim, a financial commitment of sorts issued by the bank in your favor...

To pay you the principal and some interest on the set date in future

no i'm not talking about locking money to earn interest i'm talking to open an account for the simple usage of my money, which should remain mine at any given time, which seems to not be the case

unless you're saying that for the simple thing that the bank is offering me their centralized platform, my money needs to be "shared" in some way, which is ridiculous..and it is why i choose bitcoin

jaysabi

legendary

Activity: 2044

Merit: 1115

★777Coin.com★ Fun BTC Casino!

Quote from: deisik on December 19, 2015, 05:50:11 AM

Quote from: orryde on December 18, 2015, 05:07:41 PM

This post is interesting because it brings up an important point.
In the United States 97% of money is generated through fractional reserve banking, this means that only 3% of money is cash.

So if everyone in the United States demanded their money in cash, this would reveal the truth. There simply isn't enough cold hard cash, to back up the digits on the computer.

If that were to be the case, the Central Bank (which is the Fed in the case of the US) would just print the required amount of cash. But it is simply impossible per se because companies (the major owners of the "digits on the computer") are not allowed to deal in cash (down to a very small limit for retailers). The truth is that the term itself ("fractional reserve banking") is a misnomer...

Since it shifts focus from the important to the insignificant

Is it that they are not allowed to deal in cash, or they just don't as a matter of practicality? I've never heard this before. Can you point me towards a source for further reading?

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: Amph on December 20, 2015, 01:04:54 PM

Quote from: deisik on December 20, 2015, 10:27:42 AM

Quote from: Amph on December 20, 2015, 10:02:16 AM

Quote from: deisik on December 20, 2015, 09:46:02 AM

Quote from: Amph on December 20, 2015, 06:37:07 AM

i think you didn't grasp my example, that guy asking what do do and the other responding in that way, it's like they can do whatever they want with your money

But this is obviously not the same as printing new money (which wouldn't be either mine or yours) by just adding up to the numbers, right? Or is it the same for you?

Are you really that dense?

no obvious i was talking merely how they can modify your funds without you, not even knowing about it

Wtf, I thought it was no secret that they take your money and lend it out as theirs (in fact, they don't even need it to issue a loan, wow). Strictly speaking, after you put your money in a bank, it is no longer yours (you get a claim on this money in return), therefore they are essentially free in disposing of it as they see appropriate...

Is this something of an eye-opener to you?

the fact that is no secret does not mean that is legit, and that they can deplete your funds at will, so in theory the banks are the worst and unsecure storage ever

How's that's not legit? If you buy something for your money, you are losing any rights on it, right? It is no longer your money. I assume this is beyond argument. When you open a deposit account (for the sake of simplicity), you are essentially doing the same, i.e. buying a claim, a financial commitment of sorts issued by the bank in your favor...

To pay you the principal and some interest on the set date in future

Amph

legendary

Activity: 3248

Merit: 1070

Quote from: deisik on December 20, 2015, 10:27:42 AM

Quote from: Amph on December 20, 2015, 10:02:16 AM

Quote from: deisik on December 20, 2015, 09:46:02 AM

Quote from: Amph on December 20, 2015, 06:37:07 AM

i think you didn't grasp my example, that guy asking what do do and the other responding in that way, it's like they can do whatever they want with your money

But this is obviously not the same as printing new money (which wouldn't be either mine or yours) by just adding up to the numbers, right? Or is it the same for you?

Are you really that dense?

no obvious i was talking merely how they can modify your funds without you, not even knowing about it

Wtf, I thought it was no secret that they take your money and lend it out as theirs (in fact, they don't even need it to issue a loan, wow). Strictly speaking, after you put your money in a bank, it is no longer yours (you get a claim on this money in return), therefore they are essentially free in disposing of it as they see appropriate...

Is this something of an eye-opener to you?

the fact that is no secret does not mean that is legit, and that they can deplete your funds at will, so in theory the banks are the worst and unsecure storage ever

and it also no secret that they are not printing more because they don't want to increase to much the inflation, which in fact is negative right now, so this whole thread is pointless

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: Amph on December 20, 2015, 10:02:16 AM

Quote from: deisik on December 20, 2015, 09:46:02 AM

Quote from: Amph on December 20, 2015, 06:37:07 AM

i think you didn't grasp my example, that guy asking what do do and the other responding in that way, it's like they can do whatever they want with your money

But this is obviously not the same as printing new money (which wouldn't be either mine or yours) by just adding up to the numbers, right? Or is it the same for you?

Are you really that dense?

no obvious i was talking merely how they can modify your funds without you, not even knowing about it

Wtf, I thought it was no secret that they take your money and lend it out as theirs (in fact, they don't even need it to issue a loan, wow). Strictly speaking, after you put your money in a bank, it is no longer yours (you get a claim on this money in return), therefore they are essentially free in disposing of it as they see appropriate...

Is this something of an eye-opener to you?

Topic: Why not just print dollars? - page 28. (Read 30063 times)