We sometimes see this as a statement of fact, and sometimes see it debated on these boards. The link below is to a 22 page PDF document which lays out the historic USA legal path on the question. Frankly, I had difficulty following the narration, but here it is for anyone interested:
Since it is worth the value of toilet paper, the only way to move things along is too inflate it when the real market dawdles or has the audacity not to make it look like it's really making profits. Got it's start with FDR actually, hoping to reivigorate investment by fabricating the look of virtual progress out of the Depression of 1929, and the threat that your money would become worthless eventually UNLESS you put it in the bank or an investment. The original bubble, if you don't count tulip madness four hundred years before.
Therefore, printing more money frees the bowel impacted economy from real supply and demand forces stopping it up, so, it is obviously not Constipational.
I thought this was obvious. I want my three semester hours.
“…I want my three semester hours.” And your final grade is A+.
Listening to a financial problem today it was amusing to hear a caller (who probably lied about the subject of his call to the screener) mention his PM investments, which were quite large as insurance against monetary loss in his retirement account. He literally got mocked off the air and (apparently) the call screener got his instructions to not let any more “goldbugs” to air their requests for advice. Another one did get through with similar treatment as a total “nut” when citing their concern that the dollar was likely headed for MUCH lower valuation. Of course the program’s “expert” cited the early 1980’s valuation of gold, for example, comparing it to the late 1990’s as an example of how truly risky PM investments are, and why they should be considered such a disappointment to those who invest in them. Of course there was no discussion of the manipulation that caused PMs to underperform during the above period of time.
It is encouraging that more people are voicing publicly their concerns over the direction of counterfeit currencies issued by governments. And it is equally revealing the backlash from those charged with using brow-beating tactics to defend all the funny money in circulation and most paper based investments. It is obvious, as well, that these defenders of monopoly money have been placed in their bully pulpit by the bankster class to broadcast widely propaganda in support of the same.
It is sad that people who take advice from the above mentioned are going to be big losers down the road long after these “expert” financial advisers have disappeared from the broadcast media.
You don’t need a 22 page document to convince you of that which is obviously wrong. That, of course, is how criminals operate. They construct a convoluted story that they hope no one can understand so that they can cover up their dishonesty. Then if anyone questions their operations it is because they are too stupid.
Money is really quite simple. A mining company digs out gold, silver or copper from the Earth. It gets refined, sent to a mint and turned into coinage. All of that, of course, represents value added from the original time it was removed from the mine site, and thus becomes an exchange medium. Its value is just as relevant as a farmer that grows corn for others to buy, and market forces should describe what is worth in exchange for, in this case, real money originally mined from the Earth.
Criminal central banks, given the authority by governments to do so, create paper “money” which, by force of law, must be accepted in transactions, or, for those who do not, must face imprisonment.
There! See! It only took ¼ of a page to describe money. Beware of anyone that makes the concept any more complex than that.
hapi: Your response was interesting, but failed to address the question, Is Paper Money Constitutional?
The constitution addresses money, the coining of money, the debasement of money, and counterfeiting money. Does it prohibit fiat money? It seems that citizens, politicians, and judges find different answers according to their own personal bent. Although I tend to agree with Ron Paul that fiat is unconstitutional, I have not seen a definitive answer to the subject.