Topic: You Know Whats f**king Sad? (Read 5763 times)

His problem was that the PTB were able to convince a jury that he made it look too much like US currency, not that it actually did.  They were able to convince 12 ignorant people that the term "dollar" wasn't generic, and that alone would then imply that it was an attempt to 'counterfit'.  I just think it's sad that, in our modern world, it was so easy to randomly find 12 people that ignorant.  That wouldn't have been true even 100 years ago.  The average illiterate farmer from Kansas knew that the term "dollar" referred to a silver coin of particular weight.  For that matter, there was an ongoing public debate about the virtues (and vices) of the bi-metallic standard, and the book The Wizard of OZ was written as a farce to make fun of it. (Originally, Dorthy wore silver shoes to walk on a gold brick road)

I was not aware there were notes circulated. I thought it was just the coins. Yes, the deposit receipts could have been considered a silver-backed currency. (Still not affected by the revaluation, since it still represented a fixed amount of silver.) It should be noted that if he hadn't put the word "Dollar" in there anywhere, most likely nobody would have cared.

His problem was that he made it look too much like the US's monopoly money.

Sorry to be a smart-ass but in a way NORFED and the Liberty Dollar was silver backed currency.You did have to redeem your Liberty notes for silver at the warehouse (BTW I'm not arguing that its a silver-backed currency, it isn't-or wasn't)

Not to the treasury agents, it didn't. In fact, that's what they got him for.

Thanks for the clarification. I didn't realize that Liberty Dollars were denominated in USD. That makes them a whole lot less interesting.

I guess I am one of the few that are on the contrary. Maybe most people trade BTC with USD too often. I trade it very rarely with other currencies, and when I buy things, I usually think about the exchange in various ways depending on the context.

Your understanding is flawed. The liberty dollar wasn't a silver-backed currency, it was a silver currency. They were rounds, stamped with an approximate dollar price. The revaluation simply was a change of dies to stamp the same size rounds with a higher dollar value.

You have it backwards (or you misinterpreted my statement, or my understanding is incorrect).

Originally, each Liberty Dollar could be exchanged for 1/10th oz of silver. In 2005, the Liberty Dollar was devalued to 1/20th of an oz.

Wasn't the Liberty Dollar supposed to be a silver-backed currency? I thought it was. Maybe that's not true.

Sorry, but I've got to jump on this one....

In what possible way was the Liberty Dollar revaluation a devaluation?

For the holders of LDs? No, they actually increased their purchasing power in $$$ terms. And in objective terms, they still held the same amount of silver.

For the recipients of LDs? How, when what became devalued was the USD, and NORFED just reprinted an accurate number on the rounds? Are you suggesting people should have kept spending one-ounce rounds of silver for $10 each once the spot price of silver shot past that?

The Liberty Dollar had issues... but the revaluation wasn't one of them. It was actually a pretty reasonable way to keep the currency functional in light of a depreciating USD.

While Nuthouse's goal of creating a silver-backed currency may have seemed admirable, he really botched it when he devalued the Liberty Dollar from 10 LD per oz. of silver to 20 LD per oz. I think that wasn't really his goal at all and I don't think the two are similar.

As for the day when money is not worth what it is printed on, that day has already arrived:  in 1965, when the amount of silver was reduced in coins, and now with face values of pennies and nickels lower than the melt values.

edit: replaced the $ with LD. I didn't mean USD.

In fact it's not the paper that's the problem. It's electronic currency.
You may not realize it, but most of the currency we use today is not existent. For instance.

Lets say that you have 50000$ in your bank account. It does not mean that you have a box, containing 50000 in the bank's branch. It means that you have 50000 electronic units into the bank server, that you could convert to money if you like.

It's not a problem if you actually have the money. But if it is borrowed from a bank, then it is a big problem.

That is why it is easier to use a credit card. The payments are faster, because the money DO NOT EXIST until the moment you pay them back to the bank. Transactions are purely electronic between servers of financial institutions, that's why payments are swift. Physical money and precious metals are transferred at annual rate.

Debit cards, on the other hand, contain money, which have already been printed, which is the reason of the higher security measures, and actual money have to be transferred between banks every week.

And if you ask me - bitcoin will never be as secure as paper money or gold (being most secure), because you can never be sure if we will have internet forever.
Gold, however is eternal and it will not disappear from the universe long after we are all dead.

Paper money are legal-tender, but until there is society they will have some value.

And honestly - most of us here, although not a lot will say it, would prefer paper cash rather than bitcoins.

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

I'd also like to add that BTC are very similar to the NORFED Liberty Dollar. Look it up. It involves-when something costs $1-buying it with $1 worth of silver. And, this is the way our country used to be.
Bottomline: It is simply a mathematical equation; there will be a day that w/fiat currency and constant inflation, money will be worth only what its printed on.

To all the people speaking of "GreenJew"-sorry about that, not tasteful.
And I can't believe almost everyone missed that this was a discussion of fiat currency vs. solid currency (gold, silver, etc), and the BTC's role in that. BTW, I'm pleasured to share a thread with geniuses.

After reading the 1st reply to this thread I knew it was forum gold!

LOL. The OP had groundbreaking discoveries to share with us!!

johnniewalker, I watched your videos. You seem to be good with your hands. You should stick to that. Your logic ability and communication skills are lacking. None of your posts in this thread make any sense and the "greenjew" comment is despicable. I suggest you work on those skills before posting any more of these kinds of threads. And I think you should stop taking steroids. The roid rage is going to get you in trouble.

Anti-semitism a sign of low self confidense, truly pathetic. Get the fuck out of these forums racists are nothing more then scum.

I'm definitely not an economist, but everything you say is how I would have said it. It all comes back to the basic principles of economics: unlimited demand w/limited resources. We value the dollar because of its scarcity. We value $50 more than $1 because accumulating $50 is harder to do than acquiring $1 is. We value the dollar because it is our country's (USA) system of currency, as imposed by the government.
The thing is, though, that with currency mandated by a non-federal agency and backed by absolutely nothing, there is an inevitable crash that will take place in the future, as inflation has made it as such that a $100 bill will literally be worth only its utility; maybe one asswipe or something. No one can argue that our system of money, the dollar, has been in a constant state of inflation. Unless something is done, this inflation will continue until dollar bills are worth only their utility; not much seeing as they are a small piece of paper.
Like I said, I'm not an economist. PLEASE point out any flaws in my argument. This is something that perplexes me, and its so simple. I can't believe people aren't running around rioting!
On the other hand, what is a BTC? A series of digits. BUT, once all of the BTC out there are mined, they are mined. There will be no more bitcoins created. Thus, inflation is impossible in a BTC market.
Like I said, please point out any flaws in what I have said, but it seems so simple to me that a fiat type of currency is the only one that will work over an indefinite period of time.

To any economic experts, please feel free to correct this simplified version...

For the most part currency is not tied to a specific physical item as it once was with the Gold standard.  It is actually tied to the "confidence" one has in the economy of the government backing that currency.  For instance, at one time the de facto currency used to trade in oil was the USD.  There has been a push to change that to the Euro, but that's a different topic.    Since the confidence was high in the USD many were comfortable  exchanging oil for USD and thus this gave the it more stability and therefore it gained more confidence for trading with other commodities.  

So to say Bitcoins are "tied" to the USD is actually incorrect.  It's tied to the confidence that those trading in it have in Bitcoins.  Most have more confidence in the USD than Bitcoins so they mitigate risk by using USD.  At one time many of the exchanges did offer Bitcoins to be traded with other fiat currencies, but those currencies weren't used enough for the exchanges to keep the option available.