Originally posted by DreamerUSA
View Post
Again I know economists make that distinction but what you are referring to is a "fiat currency" not the distinction made. I will concede that in certain context one may make that distinction, but our relationship to money produced... is more marked by distinguishing it from an absolute standard of value...vis a vis the Gold standard for example. because with a limited amount of the material it has a certain value in itself. I never said you were off about the Gold standard, I brought it up, and either way it serves as a perfect example.
Im belaboring this because there are other things that are absolutely essential here: For example, our treasury the place that is usually produces "money" does not, the fed produces our money... thats a pretty importan distinction: treasuries deal with treasure...and the value of treasure is the basis for money. Just like bank notes originally were notes handed out by the metal smiths, who had big safes that could hold the gold, and would use the notes as a claim on the gold held.
The reason we have the problem we both recognize has to do with fiat currency...the fact that we have a currency that is allowed to dilute and serve the interests of those who can create inflation and recession. You claim that this means they are producing currency and not real money... Fine, call it anything you like. At the end of the day real assets of value, who has the means to acquire them is the issue. If the elites used Gold to buy these things, and gave everyone else cash, would it make you feel any better? lol.
Comment