On The Subject Of Private Credit

[Carl]

Or does it rest on the estate held in trust where the FRN devalues it when we choose to use that form of currency?

Interesting question. Whose estate is being held in trust?

Federal Reserve notes represent a first lien on all the assets of the Federal Reserve Banks, and on the collateral specifically held against them.

This accounts for the FRN's limited supply and it also discounts any notions of hyperinflation.

[shikamaru]

Credit is not money at all, it is simply book keeping entries that banks have finagled into a currency or, medium of exchange.

This is exactly what money of account is: bookkeeping entries in a ledger.

The depositing of one's money into a bank transitions it from money of exchange (FRNs) to money of account (checkbook, ledger, or account entries).

FRNs are legal tender money, a unit of account and the basis of all credit/debt issued.

Gold coin, silver coin, and copper coins are lawful money
Gold coin, silver coin, copper coins, US Treasury Notes, and US Treasury Bills are lawful tender.

An FRN is a note. It is based on dollars. A dollar is a specified weight and grain of silver and per the Coinage Act of 1792.

[shikamaru]

Interesting question. Whose estate is being held in trust?

It is peoples' assets which are being held in trust.
People create governments.

[Carl]

This is exactly what money of account is: bookkeeping entries in a ledger.

The depositing of one's money into a bank transitions it from money of exchange (FRNs) to money of account (checkbook, ledger, or account entries).

Sorry but no. The unit of account remains the money (FRNs); bookkeeping merely tracks the flow of that unit of account.

By the way, there is no money in any bank account of any type anywhere within the U.S., they are all credited accounts.

Gold coin, silver coin, and copper coins are lawful money
Gold coin, silver coin, copper coins, US Treasury Notes, and US Treasury Bills are lawful tender.

U.S. law and the government's ability to impose its will through the use of force has determined that gold and silver coin are not money, regardless of your sentiments on the subject.

An FRN is a note. It is based on dollars. A dollar is a specified weight and grain of silver and per the Coinage Act of 1792.

The coinage act of 1792 was made irrelevant immaterial and beside the point by the Coinage Act of 1965.

While the FRN may resemble the USD, the USD is not the basis of the FRN. The FRN is a private issue currency.

** I stand corrected: If FRNs can be Redeemed for Dollars then that would indicate that Dollars are the basis of FRNs. However, silver plays no part in it.


.

[David Merrill]

Or does it rest on the estate held in trust where the FRN devalues it when we choose to use that form of currency?

Like this?



I recall having $4K on a Line of Credit. I told the Credit Union to remove my SSN from the Account as I did not have one any longer. They closed the account. A couple months later they called my Dad and asked him for my SSN - he declined.

[shikamaru]

Sorry but no. The unit of account remains the money (FRNs); bookkeeping merely tracks the flow of that unit of account.

Money of account is a term. It means bookkeeping entries. Granted it is term from the past, yet still a valid term.

By the way, there is no money in any bank account of any type anywhere within the U.S., they are all credited accounts.

If you re-read all that I have written to this point, you will see this is exactly what I have stated. This means I agree with you.
A bank account can be converted into money of exchange on demand.

U.S. law and the government's ability to impose its will through the use of force has determined that gold and silver coin are not money, regardless of your sentiments on the subject.

Incorrect. Gold and silver are money and are still used as such today. The mint is producing gold and silver coins as we speak. Now if you run out there into the public and spend that coin, it shall be accepted at face value. So a $20 gold coin is $20 to government and not $1500 as would be according to market value.

American gold and silver coin will be accepted as legal tender.

The coinage act of 1792 was made irrelevant immaterial and beside the point by the Coinage Act of 1965.

Quite to the contrary. Gold and silver coins as dollars were defined by the Coinage Act of 1792. Gold and silver coins are produced by the US Mint today.

I raise this point for it is material to this discussion.

All fiat money systems (including the US) start on commodities (primarily gold, silver, and copper).
Fiat money typically comes to fore when a nation is at war.

While the FRN may resemble the USD, the USD is not the basis of the FRN. The FRN is a private issue currency.

Isn't the FRN's unit of account called dollars?

** I stand corrected: If FRNs can be Redeemed for Dollars then that would indicate that Dollars are the basis of FRNs. However, silver plays no part in it.

I think you are neglecting the history of US money.
FRNs were initially backed by gold and silver coin. You could redeem a $1 FRN for a one ounce silver coin. You could redeem $20 FRN for a one ounce gold coin. The redeemability of FRNs in gold was abrogated in 1933 and in silver between 1965 - 1968.

A dollar is weight and grain of silver as outlined in the Coinage Act of 1792.
A FRN's unit of account is a dollar (in title only, not value).
Initially, a FRN represented value as based on gold, silver, and copper coin.
Think of value in terms of weight rather than market value.

[shikamaru]

Money of account

A monetary unit in which accounts are kept and that may or may not correspond to actual current denominations.

(Economics) another name (esp US and Canadian) for unit of account

[shikamaru]

Money

The French money system is made difficult to understand because there are two kinds of "money": "money of account," which is a kind of theoretical money which does not directly correspond to any coinage, and "money of exchange," which are the actual coins that change hands in the course of doing business.

There are no actual coins for the money of account. Kings minted coins which could be assigned values in terms of money of account, and these values may fluctuate given such factors as inflation (a concept not well understood then).

[Carl]

Sorry, but yes. Money of account is a term. It means bookkeeping entries. Granted it is term from the past, yet still a valid term.

I'm not disputing the term. By law, the Federal Reserve Note is the Money Of Account. Bookkeeping entries are not money and it's the propagation of that damnably fallacious notion that drives fractional reserve banking. If bookkeeping entries were money then there wouldn't be bank failures and we wouldn't need the FDIC, now would we?

Gold and silver coins are collectable commodities. If you chose to barter them away at stamped value, that's your prerogative. I'm not going to argue them any further because they are irrelevant to the subject.

Isn't the FRN's unit of account called dollars?

Yes, FRNs are mistakenly reffered to as USDs.

It appears you've been a member here long enough to know the difference between a USD and an FRN, so why the dumb act?

.

[shikamaru]

I'm not disputing the term. By law, the Federal Reserve Note is the Money Of Account. Bookkeeping entries are not money and it's the propagation of that damnably fallacious notion that drives fractional reserve banking. If bookkeeping entries were money then we there wouldn't be bank failures and wouldn't need the FDIC, now would we?

Accounting entries are money of account, but not money of exchange. FRNs currently function as money of exchange.

Your initial post is saying the same thing: that there is money of account and money of exchange. Read my posts #22 and #23.

Gold and silver coins are collectable commodities. If you chose to barter them away at stamped value, that's your prerogative. I'm not going to argue them any further because they are irrelevant to the subject.

Exchanging one's coins at values deemed legal tender is not barter.
Barter is the exchanging of items sans any medium of exchange.
Gold and silver coin stamped in dollars as the unit of account exchanged at legal tender value in accordance with public policy of the government of the United States implies said gold and silver coin is the medium of exchange for products, services, or goods.
Gold and silver coin is always relevant to any discussion of money whether historical or contemporary.

Commodity (market), face, and numismatic values are distinctive beasts.

Yes, FRNs are mistakenly reffered to as USDs.

It appears you've been a member here long enough to know the difference between a USD and an FRN, so why the dumb act?

Now, now... this is a discussion. Let not frustration get the better of you. Misunderstanding and miscommunication is not stupidity. I'm trying to communicate with you.

We can disagree without being disagreeable ... or at least I hope.

[Carl]

Accounting entries are money of account, but not money of exchange. FRNs currently function as money of exchange.
I think you aren't reading my words correctly. I am agreeing with you.
Your initial post is saying the same thing. There is money of account and money of exchange. Read my posts #22 and #23.

I'm reading your words correctly and I'm telling you your phraseology is wrong. My initial post makes no such claim. You're not agreeing with me, you're attempting twist my argument to fit your straw man and I will have none of it.

Exchanging one's coins at values deemed legal tender is not barter.
Barter is the exchanging of items sans any medium of exchange.
Gold and silver coin is always relevant to any discussion of money whether historical or contemporary.

It is your prerogative to believe whatever you like however; your beliefs are not germane to the subject as outlined.

Now, now... this is a discussion. Let not frustration get the better of you. I'm trying to communicate with you, but it makes it hard with ad hominem attacks which, I am certain, are against the policy of this forum.

It was not an ad hominem attack, it was an honest, straight foward, question.

.

.

[shikamaru]

I'm reading your words correctly and I'm telling you your phraseology is wrong. My initial post makes no such claim. You're not agreeing with me, you're attempting twist my argument to fit your straw man and I will have none of it.

I'm attempting to impart to you the terms "money of account" and "money of exchange".
I understand that credit is not "money" per your article.
I see your comparison and contrast between FRNs and credit as "money of exchange" and "money of account" respectively.
I twist nothing.
I feel the phraseology is precise and fits within historical definitions as well.

It is your prerogative to believe whatever you like however; your beliefs are not germane to the subject as outlined.

Beliefs are germane to me.
Facts are germane to this discussion.
I bring facts.
My prerogatives are fine and I am well aware of them. It's nice you recognize them.

Barter

v.intr.
To trade goods or services without the exchange of money.

v.tr.
To trade (goods or services) without the exchange of money.

n.

The act or practice of bartering.
Something bartered.

adj.
Of, relating to, or being something based on bartering: a barter economy.

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/barter#ixzz1LiCHmmVR

Gold and silver coins are collectable commodities. If you chose to barter them away at stamped value, that's your prerogative. I'm not going to argue them any further because they are irrelevant to the subject.

Gold and silver coins are legal tender and lawful tender. They are a medium of exchange.
They are only collectible commodities with regard to numismatics. The usage of a medium of exchange precludes the transaction from being labeled as barter.

And "bartering" (as you so put it) gold and silver coins at stamped value in a public transaction isn't my prerogative, it is federal law.

Tis' better to ask me what my prerogatives are rather than manufacture one of your choosing.

It was not an ad hominem attack, it was an honest, straight foward, question.

Your assessment, being your opinion, is a belief in addition to not being germane to this discussion.

One shouldn't "call the kettle" when they are guilty of the same actions.

[motla68]

Interesting question. Whose estate is being held in trust?

Federal Reserve notes represent a first lien on all the assets of the Federal Reserve Banks, and on the collateral specifically held against them.

This accounts for the FRN's limited supply and it also discounts any notions of hyperinflation.

Does it have to be any "ones" estate, what if it were for the benefit of all?


Could it be possible it is a Lien upon the Bond in Treasury the FRB deposited so that those notes can be printed and then you are charged taxes and interest upon the use of them FRNs to secure the Bonds and the increase the banks would get? An easy search you will discover that the Burea of Engraving and Printing, a federal agency prints the notes and distributes to FRB branches.
Bonded performance obligation:
In the publication published by the FEDERAL RESERVE BANK titled, "THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM PURPOSES AND FUNCTIONS," on page 115, in Appendix B Glossary of Terms, the following paragraph defines, "FEDERAL RESERVE note," and said definition does not include the UNITED STATES.

Federal Reserve note

Paper currency issued by the Federal Reserve Banks. Nearly all the na-tion’s circulating currency is in the form of Federal Reserve notes, which are printed by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, a bureau of the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Federal Reserve notes are obligations of the Federal Reserve Banks and legal tender for all debts.

You can find the file at the following link:

http://search.newyorkfed.org/board_public/search?text=pf_complete&Search.x=0&Search.y=0

Hyperinflation, who caused that? Credit Card Use, Lines of Credit, Loans, Mortgages e.t.c., Business is good for banks why would they not want to control flow of currency? Is it always someone else's fault?

[motla68]

Like this?



I recall having $4K on a Line of Credit. I told the Credit Union to remove my SSN from the Account as I did not have one any longer. They closed the account. A couple months later they called my Dad and asked him for my SSN - he declined.

The back of old SSN card's use to say it was property of the SSA, now if you look in SSA policy statutes they will say it is property of the Federal Government. So to say it was your SSN would be a mistake upon use.
In a stretch of thought here I think the "color" of money is used mainly by banks, it is the whole reason why they have the FBEP print them FRNS because they have no authority to print lawful money, if they cannot charge you interest and overdraft fees then they cannot do enough business to secure the BONDS they intend to make credit on that are in Treasury, so between not giving them a SSN which is the fish hook to get you into their international market and claiming lawful money it does not benefit them any so account gets closed. SSA policy statutes will reveal trusts between United States and other countries. It really was not your bank account, you just had use of it under their terms and conditions.

We have had several situations like this where when the Lawful Money codification was used on the presentment, the account was settled but then closed, so if you were looking to keep a credit card account open and try to use Lawful Money statement one has a decision to make what is more important to them, permanently remove themselves from the debt account or continue to cater to the existence of Color of Money an illusion of value.

[David Merrill]

Dave RAMSEY calls it Financial Peace but look at items 9 and 10!