Mark Blyth, the economist who's making sense

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
https://hbr.org/2017/06/is-america-encouraging-the-wrong-kind-of-entrepreneurship

Anyone remember the Epi-pen debacle, where a formerly cheap disposable pen delivered a dose of antihistamine to someone suffering an acute allergic reaction with a single use hypodermic needle? The pen went from costing $25-50 to over $600!

The above is a classic example of rent seeking behavior; the company drove others out of the market by suing them for patent infringement and then when they had the segment to themselves they raised the price.

This is another explanation for increased income and wealth inequality, but far from the only one.
 
F

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
This is incorrect. Central banks control the supply of money. If it was unlimited, it would be worthless, as in the case of hyperinflation.
Click to expand...

Just because person A has abazillion dollars doesn't mean you have to be poor. The fact that you believe otherwise is what's holding you back.
 
twostrokenut

twostrokenut

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
This is incorrect. Central banks control the supply of money. If it was unlimited, it would be worthless, as in the case of hyperinflation.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. Every time you personally take out a loan you personally create "money" that did not exist before. The note on your home is literally a bank note just like the one in your wallet.

That home note is floated on the open market and bought and sold, that's why your mortgage can change hands any time. Matter of fact, when you sign the note, that is literally the money your loan is derived from.

Jesus fucking christ, please give us all more economic advice.
 
Last edited:
twostrokenut

twostrokenut

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Central banks controlled the money supply even before the end of the gold standard.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. And you forgot about the silver standard that existed until 1964....so there were two standards. Congress mainly controls the supply of currency reserves. They are the true counterfeiters..........They print the bonds that are deposited that create the currency. And that ends up only being a 10% reserve to fractionally lend on at the end user reserve agent level (your bank).

Then you go and create more by taking out a loan..........when you default on that loan the newly created currency is not retracted.

Its extremely sneaky and disingenuous of our "representatives" to pretend to not understand this mechanism.
 
twostrokenut

twostrokenut

Well-Known Member
Think about it this way, you throw a pack of seeds out and some plants grow....everyone grabs off of those plants and clone or seed their own and the plants grow exponentially. Some are well tended producing the finest pollen, some are not.....

Fed doesn't control the initial sowing of seeds, that's Congress.
 
SneekyNinja

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
twostrokenut said:
Incorrect. And you forgot about the silver standard that existed until 1964....so there were two standards. Congress mainly controls the supply of currency reserves. They are the true counterfeiters..........They print the bonds that are deposited that create the currency. And that ends up only being a 10% reserve to fractionally lend on at the end user reserve agent level (your bank).

Then you go and create more by taking out a loan..........when you default on that loan the newly created currency is not retracted.

Its extremely sneaky and disingenuous of our "representatives" to pretend to not understand this mechanism.
Click to expand...
I think you're confused as to how fractional reserve banking works.
 
twostrokenut

twostrokenut

Well-Known Member
@SneekyNinja
Fed notes are reserves at your bank. Lawful money are reserves at the Fed.

There are two issuing authorities for paper currency in the united states under current law. One authority for coins.
 
twostrokenut

twostrokenut

Well-Known Member
SneekyNinja said:
It's still only 2D.

And fractional reserve doesn't work the way you think it does, close but some important specifics are wrong.
Click to expand...
Fine. Lets start with issuing authority then. I mean its not like you have injected any specifics to this point yet.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/411
Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank.

(Dec. 23, 1913, ch. 6, § 16 (par.), 38 Stat. 265; Jan. 30, 1934, ch. 6, § 2(b)(1), 48 Stat. 337; Aug. 23, 1935, ch. 614, title II, § 203(a), 49 Stat. 704.)
Click to expand...
This says that you are a Federal Reserve Agent and Federal Reserve Notes are not lawful money.
 
SneekyNinja

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
twostrokenut said:
Fine. Lets start with issuing authority then. I mean its not like you have injected any specifics to this point yet.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/411


This says that you are a Federal Reserve Agent and Federal Reserve Notes are not lawful money.
Click to expand...
If you're gonna go that way I'll just start posting recipes...

Your definition of money although technically correct is outdated.

"Money" is just an exchange of value, be it currency or metals.

Currency only fails the intrinsic value test on semantic, given it's guaranteed by the United States does it not have an intrinsic value, is fungible and is an exchange of value?
 
twostrokenut

twostrokenut

Well-Known Member
SneekyNinja said:
If you're gonna go that way I'll just start posting recipes...

Your definition of money although technically correct is outdated.

"Money" is just an exchange of value, be it currency or metals.

Currency only fails the intrinsic value test on semantic, given it's guaranteed by the United States does it not have an intrinsic value, is fungible and is an exchange of value?
Click to expand...
Lets not wax philosophical here and try to have an honest bipartisan discussion for a change.

The first judiciary act of the Untied States contained the "saving to suitors" clause which provided a common law remedy where the common law was competent to give it.

That statute I posted is not outdated and you can get a certified copy from your local repository right now.

It must be maintained in order for congress to be in harmony with the judiciary. Since law and equity has been blended this is really hard to spot these days.

currency doesn't necessarily fail the intrinsic test and the real catch-22 is that if you pay your tax bill with a silver dollar worth 17 fed notes the irs will only credit you one credit.

legal tender is not lawful money.

shall we continue?
 
Last edited:
twostrokenut

twostrokenut

Well-Known Member
SneekyNinja said:
Your definition of money although technically correct is outdated.
Click to expand...
sorry to double quote you but I would like to add that I've been hearing this specifically since USENET days......yet the statute remains. The notion that this is just a bit of "tidying up" or a "loose end" that just doesn't blip the radar is just not well researched.

The fact that this statute remains is really the entire basis in Law of the whole thing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top