The Long Road to Residency

[Timshel]

YOU are not the United States of America. YOU did not issue the dollar with which you purchased cheap shit from China. Nor is Walmart. So, of course, the incumbancy is not on YOU, (or Walmart) is it?

There is no obligation on anyone. We simply agree to accept the dollar as payment, just as they do. Both can stop accepting at any time, and while legal tender laws may attempt to stop that domestically, they can not do so effectively.

It IS, however, on the United States Government who issued the currency. The currency help by China is a debt against the U.S. government.

What? Now, again, you are going back to confusing the trade deficit with national debt. You are wrong.

Back when the dollar was backed by gold the US government was required to redeem it for gold. But that is no longer the case. We are obligated to return absolutely nothing for the dollar. The government is obligated to accept it payment for debts through it's own legal tender laws, but that does not magically become a liability rather than an accounts receivable. The government gives up nothing when it accepts payment in dollars accept it's claim to money owed.

You can claim it is not all you want - it just shows you haven't a foggy clue what money really is or how it works. Your creative illogic about not having a numerically defined debt does not hold water. If on June 15, 2010 China holds 120 billion dollars U.S. currency, then that is 120 billion dollars worth of real wealth the U.S. owes China. The U.S. government issued the currency, the U.S. government is responsible for the value it represents. Again, even though you deny it (again showing your extreme ignorance) international trade is a LOT more than simply a Walmart buying a bunch of junk and selling it to U.S. consumers.

I have proven you wrong at every turn and all you offer is vague conspiracy bullshit. Tell us, who is obligated to pay back the dollar? What are they obligated to pay? When does this obligation begin and when must it be satisfied? How much interest must be paid on this debt? You have no answers because there is no debt.

And your theory that switching from PM based currency to fiat currency somehow magically changes what money is and what money represents is, again, sheer unadulterated toatl and complete ignorance of the symbology of money and how that symbology works. The ONLY thing switching to fiat currency did is take PMs out of the middle of the value equation. When most countries used PM base currency, the relative value of things was based on their value in PMs. If a British Pound ccould buy 2 grams of gold and the U.S. dollar could buy 1 gram, then the British Pound was worth twice as much as the dollar. When buying wheat, the going rate of wheat in U.S. dollars was compared to the gold standard, and the converted to Pounds. Taske away the gold standard, and they STILL compare the price of wheat by converting using the relative value of the dollar to the pound. But push comes to shove, a certain amount of dollars STILL represents the value of a certain amount of wheat. (or beef, or oil, or manufactured electronics goods, etc. etc. etc.) All we did was take PMs out of the equation, which made relative values of currencies far less stable. But it did NOT change what money really is.

PM backed money definitely changes things. Then the dollar is, in a sense, a debt for whatever the dollar is convertible to, in an amount specified and the exchange rate is a matter of public knowledge.

When money is backed by precious metals it's value is not determined solely by its value as a medium of exchange. Precious metals have intrinsic value and while the dollar is not actually the precious metal, it can be said to have an intrinsic value since it represents a REAL claim on a specified amount of the precious metal.

And, once more, dead assed WRONG. HOW do you think money is "accepted as a medium of exchange" UNLESS IT REPRESENTS VALUE INHERENT IN TANGIBLE GOODS? Take a dollar, it represents 0.72 loaves of wheat bread at Town & Country grocers. It represents 2 Salted Nut Rolls at CV Pharmacy. The VALUE of real wealth is EXPRESSED in terms of money. That is how it works. Value is represented. Other wise "medium of exchange" has zero meaning.

I already told you, the medium of exchange is widely accepted, mostly, because it is widely accepted. That is, I take your dollar for payment because I know it will be accepted by a billion other sellers. But that could change. Tomorrow the Chinese or someone else could start refusing to accept dollars in payment and I would be left with next to nothing. I would not be able to convert the dollar into .72 loaves of wheat bread. If things got really bad, I might not be able to convert it to any amount of bread. It has no intrinsic value and represents a claim to no specified intrinsic value. It's not a debt.

And different people place different values on items - that is why trade works. Value is ALWAYS relative. So saying debt must have an absolute value is stupid, there is no such thing as absolute value.

The dollars fluctuating value has little to do with it. A debt is a claim on tangible assets. The debt agreement specifies what form, how much and when payment is expected. Again, though you will evade it anyway, the dollar in a foreigners hand has none of those properties. It does not walk like a debt, it does not talk like a debt, it's not a debt.

The foreigner is entitled to nothing. He must bargain for whatever he wishes to buy and he has no more power in setting the terms of the TOTALLY SEPARATE TRANSACTION than the seller does. There is no real connection to the transaction that brought him the dollar as he will have to enter completely new transaction in order to to get something of real value.

You are grasping at straws trying to cover your error when it should have been clear to you many posts ago that a dollar is not debt.

Well, yes, you can deny reality and in doing so claim there is no point to address. But DL&S data clearly shows that manufacturing jobs have greatly diminished in the U.S. over the last couple decades, and also shows that replacement jobs are, on average, lower paying than the manufacturing job that was lost.

Who said anything about manufacturing jobs. Why is that sole job form considered?

Nevertheless, if your claim concerning manufacturing jobs is accurate all that establishes is that manufacturing jobs have declined. You have not established proof of any cause.

I am getting tired of this because you are evading my points and have offered nothing to explain how a dollar in a foreigners hand obligates any American or the government to return some specified good in a specified amount to them. Your few attempts have been pathetic and when I pointed out your errors (e.g., the coin circulating in the family) you have failed to explain yourself further.

We have seen what your views are really based on and it is the same vague hobgoblin bs that causes nAHZi to piss himself nightly. You guys are ignorant of the process and have difficulty understanding that the only thing that changes is the scale. So you imagine that there are some sinister forces at work. You have no fucking proof of these sinister forces and can't even explain how they dictate trade in a coherent way. But you know they are there.

Trade is simple. You have money to buy, I have something to sale and we agree on a price. If you are Chinese, not a part of my family or from Mississippi nothing fucking changes. As long as your money is green, I don't give a shit where you sleep. You being a foreigner of some sort does not change the transaction or force me to give you a different price. You can pay the price I ask or not. That is all you can do.

All a dollar in the foreigners hand represents is an invitation to a new transaction, on our terms and therefore most likely resulting in a profit to us. There are no strings attached and your fears vanish in the light of reality.

 

[Timshel]

I got a few more simple questions. You can either answer or evade as you have done so many times and forfeit your inaccurate point.

You said...

It IS, however, on the United States Government who issued the currency. The currency help by China is a debt against the U.S. government.

What exactly do you believe the US government is obligated to give up for these dollars? When has this "repayment of the dollar debt" actually taken place, in the real world?

 

[Lao Tse]

I got a few more simple questions. You can either answer or evade as you have done so many times and forfeit your inaccurate point.

You said...



What exactly do you believe the US government is obligated to give up for these dollars? When has this "repayment of the dollar debt" actually taken place, in the real world?

What do they have? us. The people. They will sell us into slavery. The america people are on the hook to keep dollars valuable.

 

[DamnYankee]

Excellent catch, Zap. Savage (real name Weiner) appeals to dullards eager to soothe their panicky, low information minds. He feeds them slogans, mantras and headlines...but his substance usually does not stand the cold light of analysis.

Since no one that I know of is advocating the eradication of borders, or the elimination of English as the standard language or usurping American "culture" (which is a subjective claim to some extent), Savage is just doing his lowest common denominator appeal schtick.

Funny thing though, is that if one were to do a poll of all the remaining Native peoples tribes, you'd probably get a lot of agreement to Savages statement...although I don't think Savage would agree with the reasoning behind a Native person saying such.

He's also one of the most popular talk show hosts in the US with 9 million listeners weekly. Great that you dis so many of us freedom-loving Americans to shill for your former slavers.

 

[Timshel]

What do they have? us. The people. They will sell us into slavery. The america people are on the hook to keep dollars valuable.

Is that supposed to be an answer to the question? You think we will be sold as slaves because foreign people hold dollars? That is plainly retarded and you have no examples of this ever happening.

Can you please try to explain just what the fuck you are talking about, in a coherent fashion, without the vague bullshit?

 

[Lao Tse]

Is that supposed to be an answer to the question? You think we will be sold as slaves because foreign people hold dollars? That is plainly retarded and you have no examples of this ever happening.

Can you please try to explain just what the fuck you are talking about, in a coherent fashion, without the vague bullshit?

what makes china agree to hang onto it's dollars so the dollar doesn't plummet?

 

[Timshel]

what makes china agree to hang onto it's dollars so the dollar doesn't plummet?

How is that an answer? You are just trying to divert attention so you may evade the fact that your fears are unfounded. Answer the question. How are they going to sale us into slavery? When has this taken place?

Your question is fucking stupid. What makes you hold onto a dollar so the dollar doesn't plummet? There's your answer, retard.

Now answer the question, if you are not too chicken shit to expose the fact that your fears are nothing more than a child crying about the monsters in his closet.

 

[Lao Tse]

How is that an answer? You are just trying to divert attention so you may evade the fact that your fears are unfounded. Answer the question. How are they going to sale us into slavery? When has this taken place?

Your question is fucking stupid. What makes you hold onto a dollar so the dollar doesn't plummet? There's your answer, retard.

Now answer the question, if you are not too chicken shit to expose the fact that your fears are nothing more than a child crying about the monsters in his closet.

What does a government have as collateral?

 

[Timshel]

What does a government have as collateral?

Been over this... They don't need collateral since the dollar is not debt. It can only be used by entering into a new transaction with a willing seller. It does not give anyone the ability to demand goods or services against the will of the property owner.

You are faced again with the question... How are they going to sale us into slavery? Where has this happened?

My explanation of the facts happens countless time every day. Yours, are just the irrational fears of an ignorant child and they are totally unfounded.

 

[Lao Tse]

Been over this... They don't need collateral since the dollar is not debt. It can only be used by entering into a new transaction with a willing seller. It does not give anyone the ability to demand goods or services against the will of the property owner.

You are faced again with the question... How are they going to sale us into slavery? Where has this happened?

My explanation of the facts happens countless time every day. Yours, are just the irrational fears of an ignorant child and they are totally unfounded.

No. what collateral do we have so the chinese are convinced we will honor our own dollar?

You don't even understand the questions.

 

[Timshel]

No. what collateral do we have so the chinese are convinced we will honor our own dollar?

WE DON'T NEED COLLATERAL. We accept the dollar for the same reason they do and no one has a guarantee on it's value.

You don't even understand the questions.

I understand them fine and have given answers that are clearly supported by the evidence of billions of transactions. Meanwhile, you STILL have not answered where your phantom fears have ever taken place or explained how they will take place.

You're nothing but a fucking pansy crying about the monster under your bed.

 

[Timshel]

Just once I would like to see one of you cowards actually explain your fears. But it is doubtful it will ever happen, because you know your fears are bullshit and don't want it exposed.

 

[Good Luck]

Who said anything about manufacturing jobs. Why is that sole job form considered?

Nevertheless, if your claim concerning manufacturing jobs is accurate all that establishes is that manufacturing jobs have declined. You have not established proof of any cause.

I mention manufacturing jobs because they are consistently higher paying than the service type jobs that are replacing them.

As far as "not establishing proof of cause" only shows your deliberate ignorance of the situation while you pathetically continue to defend a system that has caused harm to the American worker. Causation HAS been established, you just ignore it.

Free trade agreements allow companies to move their manufacturing out of our borders without any consequences to their ability to sell their products. Before free trade the economic advantages of a cheaper labor and fewer safety restrictions were often negated by trade regulations which required the same levels of safety, and punished use of cheap labor by U.S. companies. When those trade regulations were removed, companies moved their manufacturing where they could take advantage of cheap labor (conveniently provided to them by despotic totalitarian governments) and ferwer safety regulations. If you think the massive exodus of manufacturing to foreign countries following the signing of various free trade treaties is mere coincidence, then you truly a fucking idiot of incomprehensible proportions.

Those who supported free trade treaties (and those fucked in the head morons who still do) assured us that we would gain jobs because trade is (supposed to be) two ways. Unfortunately that, too, is but part of their hallucinogenic lifestyle. First, free trade only served to increase our trade deficits, thus the return trade did not happen as promised. Second, the majority of jobs created since free trade allowed our manufacturing to go elsewhere have been service related, which are lower paying than manufacturing jobs.

The free trade proponents will haul out statistics showing median wages increasing over the period of time free trade was being expanded. The problem with those statistics is they present an inaccurate picture of what is actually happening to wages. Problem one is at the top upper half of median, there is no limit how far above median wage someone can go. The CEO of a large corporation can make as much as 100,000% of the median wage. At the bottom half, the most someone can go below median wage is 100%. As such, if we have 500 people making more than median wage, and 500 people making less than median wage, if just one person's salary increases by $1,000,000 without a corresponding increase in the median, then that means 100 people, or 20% of those making less than median wage just lost $10,000 of their wages.

Now, if median wages show an increase of 20% over two decades, but the wages of the top 5% double, whose salaries are measured in the millions, that means the wages of almost everyone else dropped a little or a lot. If all wages had increased, and the top 5% doubled, then the increase in median wages would be closer to 80% or greater.

In short, the use of median rather than mode is a deliberate (and unfortunately, quite successful) deception about what is actually happening to the U.S. worker as jobs are exported and some (but not all) replaced with lower paying service jobs.

 

[Timshel]

blah, blah blah blah. blah, blah blah blah. I don't want to answer how trade effects these things or acknowledge my stupid error about a dollar being debt and the phantom fears that has lead me to pee myself. I want to try to divert the conversation into one isolated area so I can circle back to these untenable positions later.

I am not going to shift gears so you can weasel out of your stupid comments, which are key to your misunderstanding of free trade.

Economies go through transitions. Creative destruction works and that is all I will say on it until you address your fundamental error.

What exactly do you believe the US government is obligated to give up for these dollars? When has this "repayment of the dollar debt" actually taken place, in the real world?

 

[Lao Tse]

WE DON'T NEED COLLATERAL. We accept the dollar for the same reason they do and no one has a guarantee on it's value.



I understand them fine and have given answers that are clearly supported by the evidence of billions of transactions. Meanwhile, you STILL have not answered where your phantom fears have ever taken place or explained how they will take place.

You're nothing but a fucking pansy crying about the monster under your bed.

But why is china willing to buy so many dollars and keep their value propped up?

 

[Lao Tse]

Stringfield, what if there were some sort of military event with china, and they threatened to dump the dollar in retaliation? Doesn't that limit our options in defending ourselves, to give a potential enemy that much leverage?

 

[Timshel]

But why is china willing to buy so many dollars and keep their value propped up?

I answered this already. For the same reason you "buy" dollars. They are useful for trade, dumbfuck. I don't know why you are having a problem with understanding why people might want money.

 

[Lao Tse]

I answered this already. For the same reason you "buy" dollars. They are useful for trade, dumbfuck. I don't know why you are having a problem with understanding why people might want money.

Would it be a problem for many americans if china stopped buying lots of dollars or sold all of it's dollars?


Im talking about currencies as an asset class, cheezenip.

 

[Timshel]

How about answering the questions I asked. Are you too chickenshit to admit that the dollar only gives them an ability to enter into a transaction that is mutually agreed upon?

Would it be a problem for many americans if china stopped buying lots of dollars or sold all of it's dollars?

Problem? That depends on your perspective. It would definitely create changes in the market. How disruptive those changes would be would depend on how they attempted to sell off their dollars. It could be a HUGE problem for China. Less demand for the dollar will obviously decrease it's value, but that is exactly what would happen with trade barriers.

Im talking about currencies as an asset class, cheezenip.

It does not matter. Again, a currency trader wants dollars because it is useful in trade. Same reason you or I want dollars. We are just buying different things.

 

[Timshel]

Chirp, chirp, chirp.

So, the US government is not obligated to repay anything and you have no real world examples of this happening. Your theory is not supported by reality and is plainly wrong. The dollar is not debt. Case closed.