Ya, the valuation makes no since. And, if it is legal tender...can we not just go down to the bank, get one, send it away to some other country where it isn't illegal to melt down due to legal tender status and profit?

Little known fact: Snakes are valid legal tender in Northern Spain.

>> ^TheGenk:

>> ^JiggaJonson:
And why was the audience cheering exactly???

Because they love the bullshit spoonfed to them warm and tender.


Okay, this is freaking me out.

I can't see @JiggaJonson's original comment.

[Ediot] Oh, I see what you did @TheGenk.

>> ^JiggaJonson:

And why was the audience cheering exactly???


Because they love the bullshit spoonfed to them warm and tender.

I think it's more about where the language is going rather than where it is now.


So you could ask for "orange juice" or "oren tzu" from the bar tender now...but what about the bar tender who's 5 now or yet even born? It would seem to be trending that he simply has stopped giving a shit at appeasing western pronunciation or is even aware of it. It is not "English" any more, they've stopped trying to speak it, they now speak "Panglish". Maybe they stop bothering to hire foreign teachers to aid in teaching English who will make these corrections and they say, "You know, our Panglish teachers are good enough...and cheaper and we don't have to give them accommodation and...".

>> ^draak13:

@artician That's quite interesting. I've known several people from singapore, malaysia, bangladesh, china, japan, vietnam, philipinnes, etc...I've never run into this phenomenon, though far be it from saying it doesn't exist. Though, so long as the standardized english language media is being broadcast, I'd be surprised if the vast majority of the people who spoke 'panglish' couldn't also understand western english.

There's more info here: http://archive.woz.org/letters/general/78.html

Basically he buys legitimate $2 bills on uncut sheets and then has a local printer gum them into pads and perforate them. It's legitimate tender, the only unusual thing is how they're presented.

As for anyone who thinks that making something that looks like currency is okay in any way, I'd suggest a revision of forgery laws may be in order

Ah...in that case - I'm guessing it's the fact that his $2 bills are not a full copy of a real $2 bill...they look like a $2 bill, but there's nothing illegal with making something that looks like a $2 bill - as long as you're not copying a real bill.

>> ^AdrianBlack:

Two dollar bills are still in circulation and are still considered legal tender. Odd but true.

Your right he does say that at the beginning of the video. Also he is incorrect in saying that it isn't illegal - to spend them. Since the US Government no longer prints them as legal tender allows him to print them (NOW however if I am not mistaken he actually started this prior to them moving out of print which would make the printing illegal) by spending them he is committing an act of fraud which is illegal. He has been lucky that he has been dealing with idiots however I am not sure appearing on this was his brightest move as he has now publicly confessed to multiple acts of fraud


>> ^kurtdh:
>> ^TheJehosephat: I think the full story isn't actually well covered here. I believe that he buys the pads from the US Mint, but then perforates them using a printer... or something. >> ^kurtdh: Can someone explain to me why this isn't illegal? He says near the beginning of the video that he had a printer in his home town do it. He also states he's not even sure if it's the right president on the bill...indicating that it indeed did not come from the U.S. mint. Any additional information on this would be helpful!

Two dollar bills are still in circulation and are still considered legal tender. Odd but true.
>> ^Tokoki:

Someone else can probably confirm - but since there are no legal $2 bills...it is not illegal to print your own $2 bill.

It wasn't 'the bank's' idea any more than the Internet was Al Gore's 'idea'. Computer records were just a natural evolution. Computers came along. Magnetic card readers came along. Banks didn't 'invent' them. They just used them like everyone else to simplify their work. Secretaries didn't invent word processors, but they use them to improve performance.

And consumer convenience via electronic records is very much something that banks want to 'do for thier customers'. They can use the convenience to attract customers and profits. Obviously such a thing is helpful to them both on the back end with their records, and on the front end in attracting potential clients. If a bank is more convenient than the other guy - it gets more business. That's making something for YOUR convenience that also helps them. Nothing wrong with that.

And so what if it is 'institutionalized'? Clothing is institutional. Should you tear them all off and go around naked because you're afraid of getting ripped off by the textile industry? Food is institutional. Should you die of starvation so you don't get ripped off by farmers and grocery stores? TV is an institution. So go throw your TV out the window so you don't get brainwashed by the 'free' TV progam ads? Money is an institution too. What's your point? That we should live in a cave and never partake of any human advance in civilization just because someone else is making a profit on it?

And everything you say you 'can't do' without a credit/debit card is bologna. You can walk to your HR department right now and demand your wages as a check, and then take that check to the bank and get cash. You can buy airline, bus, and train tickets with cash. You can buy food, clothing, utilities, and every other necessity with cash. You can pay your bills by mail. You can pay rent in cash. You can buy a house with cash. A bank account HELPS in all these transactions (IE convenience). But if you walk up to a business with with a wad of legal tender they WILL accept it - I promise you. I have never once walked into a car dealership with a pile of cash to buy a car and had them turn me away. Quite the opposite. They literally drool over me, and it gives me far more power to negotiate.

All I'm saying is that the things you SAY you can't do without a bank are easily doable if you apply a little elbow grease. If you find paying a measley $5 a month so horribly offensive and crippling to your finances, then do yourself a favor and stop whining about it. Take your money and go somewhere else.

You have been brainwashed by their system. It is NOT a privilege to use their card, it is a requirement.

The banks have made it so that the card has replaced tangent legal tender. Many businesses don't even accept cash anymore. they have made us reliant on the bank to do everything. we can't even pay our bills any more without the bank. All local services have closed their doors to bill payments, we have been forced to pay through the banks. And you can't even access your account anymore, even at the teller, without your card.

The "Card" is not a privilege, it has been instituted into everything we do. Online shopping is part of that. Even my fourteen-your-old daughter has been forced to use a visa-debit card by the bank to force her into online shopping. Many products and services can now 'only' be bought using these online-debit cards. Things like video rentals, Theater and concert tickets and more. Many stores don't bring in their full selection anymore because they make it available on-line instead.

Trust me, get rid of your credit an debit card and you'll see how crippled you are without them.
I repeat, NOT a privilege,a REQUIREMENT.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:


Banks will charge consumers directly for transaction fees now - or (as BoA is doing) they will charge a yearly fee for the priveledge of a debit card.

@NetRunner

I think the difference in our concept of what's going on is that my understanding is that commercial banks can make a reserve deposit at any Fed branch and then make loans against that. From what I can tell, there isn't any math done like you're describing. Maybe if you want to make a new bank or long ago when some of these banks were created there was math like that, but there isn't anymore. There is simply a minimum number required to have on reserve deposit or in vault cash compared to how much you have loaned out. This is all not to mention that there are types of deposits which have exceptions to the reserve requirement. That alone makes sure banks are loaning more than they have (if they want to take the increased risk).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_requirement#United_States

I mean, if putting $100 in a Fed reserve bank and loaning out $900 based on someone's promise to pay isn't creating money, I don't know what is. You don't have to start out with $1000 to make the $900 loan once you're already a commercial bank. That's the point. If you make money on some investment, you can make loans and collect interest against your increased profits. You don't have to have the money and then hold 10% back. (Glass-Steagall, anyone?)

Plus, the money that comes in as interest is money that never existed in the money supply before the loan was created. Someone else has to borrow money to pay you in order for you to be able to pay your interest. This is why growth is required to pay interest and avoid foreclosure and default. If the money supply does not increase and more people aren't promising to pay interest, other people won't be able to fulfill their promises to repay. That's why the system requires growth to function well.

Legal tender law and fiat currency make sure that everyone must participate in the system at some point, or your contracts won't be protected by the courts and you won't be able to pay your taxes, since both only deal in dollars.

>> ^handmethekeysyou:

Tender was jogging back to his goal. Gotta sprint bud.
That said, he starts back to his net @ :13 and the ball crosses the line @ :26. Not sure about this particular pitch, but estimate 100m length. Would need to be very fast indeed to make it back in time since he was right up at the opposing goal.


total field length is 100m

He didn't need to get back to the goal, just a few metres farther than the last defender was, which was doable.>> ^handmethekeysyou:

Tender was jogging back to his goal. Gotta sprint bud.
That said, he starts back to his net @ :13 and the ball crosses the line @ :26. Not sure about this particular pitch, but estimate 100m length. Would need to be very fast indeed to make it back in time since he was right up at the opposing goal.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^mgittle:
The problem with fractional reserve systems using fiat currency is their reliance on growth.
I haven't watched the documentary you linked, but the only part of what you said I'd really contest is this part.
How is fiat currency reliant on growth?
Perhaps you meant it the other way around -- that fiat currency is just one more tool that's used to cajole the human race into participating in this "growth" whose value has become increasingly dubious?
That's how I see it, at least on the days when I see the face and not the vase. Most days I still see markets and capitalism as a positive net influence on the welfare of the human race, but their most fervent advocates sure do work hard at making me think otherwise.


Yeah, well put rearding the "fervent advocates". I did kind of mean it the other way around. Thank you for actually taking a second to understand my meaning rather than arguing literal points only (the literal-only thing being my definition for nerdiness).

It's not fiat currency alone that makes our economy reliant on growth. I should have been more specific, but such is life when you have to get to sleep...haha. Fiat currency just a part of the whole Fractional Reserve banking + legal tender law + fiat currency system. In my mind, the growth thing is probably tied most to the fractional reserve system. Hopefully none of this sounds condescending because I'm not sure how much of this you already know, but here's my understanding:

Because the money supply is variable and dependent on debt, an expanding economy is extremely good and a contracting one is extremely bad. Because banks are allowed to loan more money than they possess *and* charge interest, you run into a problem. Where do individuals get the money needed to pay the interest on their loan if it was created from nothing? You have to get it from the overall money supply, which is made up of money created by banks from other peoples' promises to pay.

Thus, with every new credit card swipe, mortgage signing, etc, more money is owed to banks than actually exists at any given time. It's only the time lag between borrowing and repayment that keeps the entire system from collapsing. This means that unless the total amount of debt continually increases at a sufficient rate, it's impossible for everyone to succeed in paying back their loans...there must be foreclosures. This is why people constantly get offers of new credit, *and* why recessions are such a bitch. It's very hard to get things growing again after the money supply decreases.

The system is also one in which individuals paying off debts have more money (less income goes to paying interest), but everyone paying off their debts leaves society with no money. Therefore, anyone who pays off their debt to increase their own personal financial security actually hurts the overall economy. It makes no sense for markets to rely on rational individuals' decisions if their individual decisions are bad for the economy in aggregate. For this reason alone, the system is extremely fragile.

Hope all that makes some sort of sense. Maybe I'm wrong in parts. I'm partially regurgitating the videos I linked earlier while adding in stuff I've learned from other sources. I've nor heard anyone refute the premise of the video, but I'm sure it's not infallible in its interpretation. I'd love to hear what other people think. It got sifted long ago but there was little discussion.

As for your comments about markets being a net positive, I don't disagree with you at all. It's when people rely on markets to solve every problem (including moral ones) and don't realize that there are some places markets ought not go that there becomes a problem. (Should courts enforce a custody contract between an infertile couple and a surrogate mother? ...and and endless list of other similar questions)