What's the Correct Denomination for Coins?

I don't see that happen anywhere. Commodities may of course be accepted as means of payment by some. But their value will be determined in ... units of real money.

Christian

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

But why would you pay your bills with something that isn't money?

 

If I remember right it was like Oklahoma, Texas, and Utah in a very limited fashion and it was about 3 years ago and the movement died very fast as metals came crashing down.

 

I'm just pointing out that your broad blanket statement of making things illegal removes any sort of desirability and value is untrue. There are plenty of valid arguments to work with here. Over generalizations and attempting to make facts out of opinions only degrades your argument.

(and have you observed the stacking community lately... if some of those folks aren't addicted, I don't know what addiction is )

 

There is an exception to every rule except maybe that addition will always win with addicts.

That said I did say the overwhelming majority of people will not deal in black markets, which remains true even for addition substances. The overwhelming majority do not sell drugs, nor did they sell booze during prohibition.

The reason people enter an illegal market is upside. Either it is a high they are chasing or large amounts of cash. Gold would have no mind alterations, and little to no money making upside if it was truly illegal to have.

 

Like gold?

 

The latest was Arizona a few months ago and another was considering it. I think perhaps WY but I am not sure. And the movement did not die - it is still on the books in states which passed it.

 

Apparently to some. Well played.

The movement died and it died hard. It went from multiple states considering it to basically nothing.

AZ proposal was essentially to eliminate taxes on converting it to real money. Still hasn't actually passed yet

 

Arizona's proposal was to eliminate taxes when converting certain types of real money into FRNs so that you are able to pay your bills using government mandated fiat.

 

exotic pets, ivory, counterfeit goods... the list goes on of illegal things that are still in demand. I merely used the most relate-able. Sometimes they hold their value. Sometimes they decrease in value. Sometimes they increase. Making something illegal does not necessarily remove the demand automatically decreasing the value to naught. It merely puts people in jail for possessing it.

 

So I say that it drastically reduces a market then you come on naming a bunch of markets that 99.9 percent of the world couldn't care less about and somehow I was wrong?

 

False. It was eliminating the tax from money to bullion and sayng bullion could be money to eliminate it back.

https://apps.azleg.gov/BillStatus/BillOverview/68430?SessionId=117

 

I read the reviews on Amazon. What they suggest will come as no surprise: those who like the book tend to support the "Austrian School" and those who don't tend to support Keynesian economics.

From a positive review: "If you are a Tea Party supporter, libertarian, Ron Paul supporter or just in favour [sic] of smaller government, this is a must read book."

From a negative review: "... this is polemic, rather than illumination. So this book has the limited use of explaining to children or the uneducated how a basic economy is created—but beyond the first half of the book, it is not worth much."

 

What the Keynesians don't realize is that TPTB will do anything they can to suppress opposition to Keynesian economics because they are afraid that if the secret gets out they may lose control. My wife has a degree in economics from the University of Virginia and she was not familiar with the term Keynesian Economics until I introduced her to it. Sure, she knew the material, but not the term. It is as if they never gave it a name because to do so is an implicit admission that there is actually an alternative view of economics.

I have found that people who refuse to even consider the other side of any issue are very narrow minded and not deep thinkers. Of course, the overwhelming majority of people fall into that category. That is why the word sheeple was invented.

 

You are voicing your opinion as facts. Making something illegal does not eliminate the market. I honestly can't think of a single example where demand for a service or commodity has completely disappeared because it was made illegal. Please enlighten me.

 

C'mon, Sakata, your entire comment reeks of conspiracy theory and your last paragraph of condescension.

Who are the "Keynesians" you broadly refer to? The Fed? Certain members of Congress? University faculty?

Who are the "powers that be"? Are they the same as above? Then why not identify them? And how can they "not realize" what they themselves are doing?

What "secret" do they fear getting out? Alternative views of the Keynesian model? Such views are readily available with a simple google search; how could they possibly be considered "secret"?

Btw, the "powers that be" for the past six years in our Senate and House have adamantly opposed any kind of "Keynesian solution" to our economic malaise such as investing in our infrastructure while rates have been low. The "anti-Keynesians" have effectively already been in control.

Furthermore, I find your claim ridiculous that your wife is not familiar with the term "Keynesian economics" despite "knowing the material." UVA is a top-rung school, one of the "public ivies." (I lived in Richmond for many years and am quite familiar with UVA and all the Hoos in Hooville. An old girlfriend got her Master's there.) And yet your wife's faculty never "gave it a name" in order to shield her from "alternative views"? How could these claims possibly have any validity?

With respect to your last paragraph, I completely agree: people who fail to consider the other side of any issue tend to be "narrow-minded." I would add that people who presume to know the minds of others are also such.

 

I said it greatly reduces a market which it does and makes its worthless to the vast majority of the people which it does. You brought up drugs which is a different animal and believe it or not the majority of people don't use illegal drugs either despite what you want to believe.

 

Btw, I don't mean to accuse you of making this up. I understand you're being sincere. "Keynes" can be implicit in discussion just as "Newton" can be when discussing traditional physics.

I also understand the inertia of entrenched ideas.

But to suggest that her faculty withheld (or "suppressed") information to somehow protect their agenda—sorry, that doesn't work for me.

 

I was not really implying deliberate suppression as much as meaning that they did not consider any other type of economic as being worth considering and so did bother to label it Keynesian Economics. It was as if Austrian, or any other type, did not even exist. She knew all the facts when she graduated (many years go) but had never heard it referred it as Keynesian Economics, even thought Keynes was discussed.

To me that strikes of either ignorance or deliberation. A few years ago I was talking to the head of the economics department at a community college I was adjuncting at the time. When I asked him why they did not teach Austrian his response was that he could not remember what it was but he thinks he did have a course in a course in it as a grad students. That says a lot.