Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Numbers, post: 1207663, member: 11668&quot;]Answering the last bit first: I&#039;m not denying anybody the right to change the system.&nbsp; We the people (acting through Congress) created the system, and we the people (acting through Congress) can change it.&nbsp; What I&#039;m saying is that (a) I don&#039;t see how your proposed changes would be improvements, and (b) if we *do* change the system, we&#039;re simply changing our minds, not triumphantly throwing off a system that was imposed on us by someone besides us.</p><p><br /></p><p>As for the rest, you&#039;re drawing distinctions without differences:</p><p><br /></p><p>Federal Reserve Notes are backed by Treasury debt; United States Notes *are* Treasury debt (and saying they&#039;re not doesn&#039;t make it so).&nbsp; Thus the amount of debt is the same either way.</p><p><br /></p><p>The USNs are, as you say, interest-free.&nbsp; The bonds backing the FRNs pay interest--but that interest is paid to the Fed, and the Fed&#039;s profits go to the Treasury.&nbsp; So with USNs the government pays no interest, and with FRNs the government pays interest to itself.&nbsp; The result is the same either way.</p><p><br /></p><p>I don&#039;t see what my arguments in favor of FRNs have in common with gold advocates&#039; arguments against FRNs.&nbsp; For the first two decades of their existence, FRNs were redeemable in gold anyway--and during the same era, USNs were exchangeable for gold as well.&nbsp; Ever since gold was removed from circulation in 1933, it&#039;s certainly true that FRNs and USNs are very different from a gold-backed currency...but again, that&#039;s something that FRNs and USNs have in common.&nbsp; You&#039;re still not finding any practical *difference* between FRNs and USNs that would motivate a switch from one to the other.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in