Legal Tender Act passed

On Feb 25, 2:49*pm, "Bremick" wrote:
"oly" wrote in message

...
On Feb 25, 11:56 am, "Bremick" wrote:





"Frank Galikanokus" "Frank wrote in
...

Feb 25, 1862:
Legal Tender Act passed

The U.S. Congress passes the Legal Tender Act, authorizing the use of
paper notes to pay the government's bills.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-h...der-act-passed

JAM

Almost 150 years now and we're still waiting for that certain economic
doom
that the bankers and financial experts predicted. I know. I know. It's
coming. Just listen to the experts.

You know, U.S. 90% silver coins, dimes, quarters and halves, the ones
you were spending in daily commerce back in 1960, are now trading for
greenies at TWENTY-FOUR times (or more) original face value.

How do you come up with "same-o, same-o"???

Do you have a "debt-wish"???
-----------------

Do you call that economic Doom? *Has our currency collapsed? * Is your 2001
salary the same as it was, or would have been, in 1964?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

My salary isn't 24 times what a bank examiner (with some seniority)
got back in 1964. It's probably closer to ten times.

I'm figuring week in and week out, the seasoned examiners got paid
$175 per week (and some of the juniors as low as $100 per week), but
that might be a little on the high side.

One of my fellow examiners who was in the Army in 1971-73 looked up
his old payscale and it was $161 mos to start and $363 mos at the
end. He lived and ate on the base, not yet married. He started out
very very low in rank.

And it is a form of economic doom; for the four currencies which have
survived since pre-1913, it's simply the death of ten-thousand cuts as
opposed to a guillotine.

oly

"Bremick" wrote in message
...
So, yes, we're one of the three or four whose "fiat" currency hasn't
collapsed. That's my point. It involves those ca1862 "financial expert"
doomsayers who predicted the collapse of everything we hold dear because of
this new paper currency. 150 years and still waiting. I suspect those
"experts" and their heirs still managed to prosper throughout the years
following their statements.

If one's definition of money includes that it be a store of value, then FRNs
certainly are not doing the job.
They are currently worth about 5% of their value when FDR took us off the gold
standard in 1933.
If there is historical precendent for a stable fiat currency, I never saw it.

On Feb 25, 4:16*pm, "Beanie" wrote:

If there is historical precendent for a stable fiat currency, I never saw it.

Actually, there is. There may be others and the applicability of the
example I know is somewhat limited. The most famous example (that I
know) is this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Swiss_dinar

Unfortunately Wikipedia does not capture the whole picture of how
remarkable the case was, but you get a lot of the idea from the link.

Bremick wrote:

"Frank Galikanokus" "Frank wrote in message
...
Bremick wrote:

"Frank Galikanokus" "Frank wrote in message
...

Feb 25, 1862:
Legal Tender Act passed

The U.S. Congress passes the Legal Tender Act, authorizing the use of
paper notes to pay the government's bills.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-h...der-act-passed

JAM

Almost 150 years now and we're still waiting for that certain economic
doom
that the bankers and financial experts predicted. I know. I know. It's
coming. Just listen to the experts.

We've had some economic disasters since then 1907, 1929, 2008 but these
were not caused by paper currency.

JAM

I'm hearing you. I'm still talking "doom" like those financial experts
prophesized because of that new paper currency. Maybe their interpretation
of "doom" is different from mine.

O

JAM

"Beanie" wrote in message ...

"Bremick" wrote in message
...
So, yes, we're one of the three or four whose "fiat" currency hasn't
collapsed. That's my point. It involves those ca1862 "financial expert"
doomsayers who predicted the collapse of everything we hold dear because
of this new paper currency. 150 years and still waiting. I suspect
those "experts" and their heirs still managed to prosper throughout the
years following their statements.

If one's definition of money includes that it be a store of value, then
FRNs certainly are not doing the job.
They are currently worth about 5% of their value when FDR took us off the
gold standard in 1933.
If there is historical precendent for a stable fiat currency, I never saw
it.


The hour's wage worth of today's FRN's still buys about the same as the
hour's wage in FDR's time. If a stable currency is so important, why then
do all countries choose fiat currencies?

On Feb 25, 7:53*pm, "Bremick" wrote:
"Beanie" wrote in ....

"Bremick" wrote in message
...
So, yes, we're one of the three or four whose "fiat" currency hasn't
collapsed. *That's my point. *It involves those ca1862 "financial expert"
doomsayers who predicted the collapse of everything we hold dear because
of this new paper currency. *150 years and still waiting. *I suspect
those "experts" and their heirs still managed to prosper throughout the
years following their statements.

If one's definition of money includes that it be a store of value, then
FRNs certainly are not doing the job.
They are currently worth about 5% of their value when FDR took us off the
gold standard in 1933.
If there is historical precendent for a stable fiat currency, I never saw
it.

The hour's wage worth of today's FRN's still buys about the same as the
hour's wage in FDR's time. * If a stable currency is so important, why then
do all countries choose fiat currencies?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Note that those who are retired and depend on a fixed income (annuity,
or conventional pension) might be less pleased than the workers. Also
any progressive tax regime that seeks to "soak the rich" has a
convenient way to adjust the fraction of the GDP it captures.

On Feb 25, 4:51*pm, "Beanie" wrote:

bad, if not disingenuous example.

You doubted the existence of an historical precedent. It is only
recent history, but unless you doubt Wikipedia, it seems to be
historical, even so. Admittedly, the measurement period was modest
and the Swiss Dinars did better than just hold their value (they
actually did better than the US dollar). How does that make it bad?

Disingenuous would seem to indicate that you not only doubt the
example, but also doubt my motive. I don't understand how that came
to be.

"oly" wrote in message
...
On Feb 25, 2:49 pm, "Bremick" wrote:
"oly" wrote in message

...
On Feb 25, 11:56 am, "Bremick" wrote:





"Frank Galikanokus" "Frank wrote in
...

Feb 25, 1862:
Legal Tender Act passed

The U.S. Congress passes the Legal Tender Act, authorizing the use of
paper notes to pay the government's bills.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-h...der-act-passed

JAM

Almost 150 years now and we're still waiting for that certain economic
doom
that the bankers and financial experts predicted. I know. I know. It's
coming. Just listen to the experts.

You know, U.S. 90% silver coins, dimes, quarters and halves, the ones
you were spending in daily commerce back in 1960, are now trading for
greenies at TWENTY-FOUR times (or more) original face value.

How do you come up with "same-o, same-o"???

Do you have a "debt-wish"???
-----------------

Do you call that economic Doom? Has our currency collapsed? Is your 2001
salary the same as it was, or would have been, in 1964?- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

My salary isn't 24 times what a bank examiner (with some seniority)
got back in 1964. It's probably closer to ten times.

I'm figuring week in and week out, the seasoned examiners got paid
$175 per week (and some of the juniors as low as $100 per week), but
that might be a little on the high side.

One of my fellow examiners who was in the Army in 1971-73 looked up
his old payscale and it was $161 mos to start and $363 mos at the
end. He lived and ate on the base, not yet married. He started out
very very low in rank.

And it is a form of economic doom; for the four currencies which have
survived since pre-1913, it's simply the death of ten-thousand cuts as
opposed to a guillotine.

------------------

If you were being paid today in 1964 silver half dollars at face value, then
your comparison might be more relevant. Silver is erratic, doubling in
value over the past year primarily due to world events and investor emotion.
A few years ago it dropped in value. A little over two years back you were
probably making a similar salary while silver was trading at only TEN times
face. The average annual increase in the price of silver since 1964 has
been less than a dollar a year, hardly competitive to compounded bank
interest over that same period.

I started out in the Army under the same circumstances in 1962 at $78 a
month (before taxes and "unit fund contributions"). Today it would be $1467
or about twenty times greater. To show how military pay has been adjusted,
my starting fed salary was $5,500. Today it would be $27,430, only about
ten times greater. And feds don't get free meals, quarters, and medical,
and they can't retire at age 40. Not intending to disparage today's
military, but they aren't the only "feds" who are asked put their life on
the line.

I guess I'll take those thousand cuts. They're hardly noticeable.

"Peter" wrote in message
...
On Feb 25, 7:53 pm, "Bremick" wrote:
"Beanie" wrote in
...

"Bremick" wrote in message
...
So, yes, we're one of the three or four whose "fiat" currency hasn't
collapsed. That's my point. It involves those ca1862 "financial expert"
doomsayers who predicted the collapse of everything we hold dear
because
of this new paper currency. 150 years and still waiting. I suspect
those "experts" and their heirs still managed to prosper throughout the
years following their statements.

If one's definition of money includes that it be a store of value, then
FRNs certainly are not doing the job.
They are currently worth about 5% of their value when FDR took us off
the
gold standard in 1933.
If there is historical precendent for a stable fiat currency, I never
saw
it.

The hour's wage worth of today's FRN's still buys about the same as the
hour's wage in FDR's time. If a stable currency is so important, why then
do all countries choose fiat currencies?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Note that those who are retired and depend on a fixed income (annuity,
or conventional pension) might be less pleased than the workers. Also
any progressive tax regime that seeks to "soak the rich" has a
convenient way to adjust the fraction of the GDP it captures.
--------------------

I'm missing your point. I'm retired and am usually more pleased than I was
when I had to go to work every day. Plus, I don't have to worry about job
security. I welcomey the challenge of living within the limits of my
pension. I was never anywhere close to being rich, but I still believe
that those who BECOME rich shouldn't be taxed at a higher percentage than
the rest of us-- as long as they actually DO pay that percentage of their
income. Financial success shouldn't be "soaked".

On Feb 25, 8:52*pm, "Bremick" wrote:
"Peter" wrote in message

...
On Feb 25, 7:53 pm, "Bremick" wrote:





"Beanie" wrote in
...

"Bremick" wrote in message
...
So, yes, we're one of the three or four whose "fiat" currency hasn't
collapsed. That's my point. It involves those ca1862 "financial expert"
doomsayers who predicted the collapse of everything we hold dear
because
of this new paper currency. 150 years and still waiting. I suspect
those "experts" and their heirs still managed to prosper throughout the
years following their statements.

If one's definition of money includes that it be a store of value, then
FRNs certainly are not doing the job.
They are currently worth about 5% of their value when FDR took us off
the
gold standard in 1933.
If there is historical precendent for a stable fiat currency, I never
saw
it.

The hour's wage worth of today's FRN's still buys about the same as the
hour's wage in FDR's time. If a stable currency is so important, why then
do all countries choose fiat currencies?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Note that those who are retired and depend on a fixed income (annuity,
or conventional pension) might be less pleased than the workers. *Also
any progressive tax regime that seeks to "soak the rich" has a
convenient way to adjust the fraction of the GDP it captures.
--------------------

I'm missing your point. *I'm retired and am usually more pleased than I was
when I had to go to work every day. *Plus, I don't have to worry about job
security. *I welcomey the challenge of living within the limits of my
pension. * *I was never anywhere close to being rich, but I still believe
that those who BECOME rich shouldn't be taxed at a higher percentage than
the rest of us-- as long as they actually DO pay that percentage of their
income. *Financial success shouldn't be "soaked".- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I was trying to avoid discussing your specific case, actually. A
retired federal employee (as I suspect you might be) has, under CSRS,
a pension that is indexed to a cost of living index. It is a feature
that is not typical of an annuity or a conventional pension. I am in
the same situation that I guess you are in and have a somewhat similar
view of that situation.

You were discussion the plight of the currently employed. Your remark
seems accurate as far as it went. If someone is currently employed in
the US, in the past wages have done a reasonable job of following the
cost of living. The case you omitted was those that stepped out of
the system. I mentioned one example of someone who steps out by
retiring on an annuity or conventional pension.

Retiring on an annuity or a conventional pension means, for most, that
inflation will take its toll.

The other case you didn't treat was the benefiit of using a fiat
currency except to wonder why they seem prevalent. They are prevalent
for many reasons; I mentioned one:
It is easy under a progressive tax system for governments to adjust
the revenue they receive. In inflation, the government's revenue
increases faster than inflation so long as it does not lower taxes
(more people meet the minimum income and more reach the highest tax
bracket).

Please note that I am not necessarily disagreeing with your initial
post; I am merely noting some of the aspects you omitted.