Legal Tender Act passed

"Bremick" wrote in message
...
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?

Becuase it is politically expedient to do so.

"Bremick" wrote in message
...
I guess I'll take those thousand cuts. They're hardly noticeable.

Either you are the stupidest man that ever lived or...
No, you are the stupidest man that ever lived.

"Beanie" wrote in message ...
"Bremick" wrote in message
...
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?

Becuase it is politically expedient to do so.

It would seem it's more likely fiscally expedient, unless maybe you're a Yap
Island resident.

"Beanie" wrote in message ...
"Bremick" wrote in message
...
I guess I'll take those thousand cuts. They're hardly noticeable.

Either you are the stupidest man that ever lived or...
No, you are the stupidest man that ever lived.

It's obvious you don't understand. Or you haven't had much experience in
adulthood yet.

"Bremick" wrote in message
...

"Beanie" wrote in message ...
"Bremick" wrote in message
...
I guess I'll take those thousand cuts. They're hardly noticeable.

Either you are the stupidest man that ever lived or...
No, you are the stupidest man that ever lived.

It's obvious you don't understand. Or you haven't had much experience in
adulthood yet.

I shouldn't say you are a stupid man.
But you do, like most of us, make stupid statements.
You were touting a flat tax plan - a plan that is more onerous on low income
people than the very rich - the same very rich who control 85-90% of the wealth
in the USA.
A graduated tax is fairer by any standard of decency.
Let's say the flat tax is 10% to keep thing easy.
Joe Lunchbox drawing down a cool $40000/yr and would pay $4000 - leaved him with
a kool $36K
Big Shot gets paid $10,000,000.00/yr - pays $1,000,000 - leaves him with $9mil
And that seems equitable to you, right?
Well I posit that it's grossly unfair.
My tax plan would not even start taxing people until they earned more than
$25,000.
Middle class taxpayers from $25001 to $50000 pay 5%
$50000-100000 pay 10%
$100001-250000 pay 12%
$250001 -500,000 pay 15%
$500,001 - 1,000,000 pay20%
$1,000,001 - $10,000,000 25%
$10,000,000 - $50,000,000 30%
All monies earned over $50,000,000 pays 50%
No tax write offs for anything, no taz shelters, no shady lawyers accountants
and conivers

"Beanie" wrote in message ...

"Bremick" wrote in message
...

"Beanie" wrote in message
...
"Bremick" wrote in message
...
I guess I'll take those thousand cuts. They're hardly noticeable.

Either you are the stupidest man that ever lived or...
No, you are the stupidest man that ever lived.

It's obvious you don't understand. Or you haven't had much experience in
adulthood yet.

I shouldn't say you are a stupid man.
But you do, like most of us, make stupid statements.
You were touting a flat tax plan - a plan that is more onerous on low
income people than the very rich - the same very rich who control 85-90%
of the wealth in the USA.
A graduated tax is fairer by any standard of decency.
Let's say the flat tax is 10% to keep thing easy.
Joe Lunchbox drawing down a cool $40000/yr and would pay $4000 - leaved
him with a kool $36K
Big Shot gets paid $10,000,000.00/yr - pays $1,000,000 - leaves him with
$9mil
And that seems equitable to you, right?
Well I posit that it's grossly unfair.
My tax plan would not even start taxing people until they earned more than
$25,000.
Middle class taxpayers from $25001 to $50000 pay 5%
$50000-100000 pay 10%
$100001-250000 pay 12%
$250001 -500,000 pay 15%
$500,001 - 1,000,000 pay20%
$1,000,001 - $10,000,000 25%
$10,000,000 - $50,000,000 30%
All monies earned over $50,000,000 pays 50%
No tax write offs for anything, no taz shelters, no shady lawyers
accountants and conivers

You're certainly welcome to your opinion. I don't consider your proposal
"stupid"; I just don't agree with it. In my own opinion, each wage earner
should pay the same percentage of his or her total annual take. I don't
mean to be crass, but that would indeed affect a large percent of lower
income families who now end up paying no tax at all, but who use the same
services that the rest of us pay taxes to keep going. If you were able to
use your education and ingenuity to make yourself wealthy, you shouldn't
have to bear an excess burden of supporting those who didn't. With my view,
I would have to agree about no tax writeoffs or shelters, etc. We each
share the load and pay that same percentage period. You may not agree, but
it's not stupid.

On Feb 25, 9:23*pm, "Beanie" wrote:

Because the time frame they were in use is too short and most fiat currencies
work in the short term - until the politicians' urge to print more currency
becomes too much to resist.

"too short"

That may be, but you have what may be a classic case that seems to
support the idea that the inherent weakness of a fiat currency is the
temptation to print more of it.

Side by side there were two currencies that differed, initially, only
in appearance. One continued being printed and lost most of its
value. The other could not be printed and the users had reason to
believe that it would remain so for the foreseeable future. That
currency actually increased in value.

If the period is "too short", what would have changed the outcome if
the period had been longer?

"Peter" wrote in message
...
If the period is "too short", what would have changed the outcome if the period
had been longer?

The politicians' desire to placate the people (and/or enrich themselves) by big
gubmint spending.
Once they are unfettered by a solid backing for the currency, the temptation to
keep the printing presses running full tilt is irresistible.
The loss of purchasing power of fiat currencies over the long term is well
documented and I suggest you do a bit of research for complete details.

"Beanie" wrote in message ...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
If the period is "too short", what would have changed the outcome if the
period had been longer?

The politicians' desire to placate the people (and/or enrich themselves)
by big gubmint spending.
Once they are unfettered by a solid backing for the currency, the
temptation to keep the printing presses running full tilt is irresistible.
The loss of purchasing power of fiat currencies over the long term is well
documented and I suggest you do a bit of research for complete details.

True, but do note that not all of that is attributable to putting the
printing presses on steroids.

Even under conservative fiscal policies and practices, a certain amount of
"background" inflation is inevitable due to supply/demand pressures and the
circular effect of both workers and businesses trying to enhance their
income through marginal increases in wages and prices.

In a similar vein, businesses and individuals with significant debt
liabilities benefit whenever the current real value of their debts shrinks,
regardless of whether it's from fiat money running amok or just normal
inflation. As your pay or pricing goes up to compensate for the shrinking
value of your paycheck or sales revenues, the relative cost to service your
mortgage or existing corporate paper becomes a smaller and smaller
percentage of your income. It's a zero-sum game that's bad for creditors
but good for debtors. Not that this effect is a significant motive to
devalue one's unit of currency (except where government debt is concerned),
but it does take some of the sting out of inflation.

Large devaluations in the purchasing power of money due to bad fiscal policy
are much more obvious and tend to occur over relatively short time frames,
whereas the other sources of loss of purchasing power tend to operate
constantly and quietly in the background. The other main difference is that
not much can be done about the latter; but the cheapening of fiat money is
totally under political control.

"mazorj" wrote in message
...
but the cheapening of fiat money is totally under political control.

Politicians all like to point out to the electorate on how the brought home the
bacon to their home district.
Since there isn't enough money around for fund all the pork, the only ways to
get it are borrow or print more money (aka quantitative easing).
Currently we do both.
China is the largest holder of US debt and is going to be left holding the bag
as the dollar dwindles in value.
The Chinese have a tiger by the tail - if they start to dump their T-Bills, the
dollar and the value of the t-bills will drop lock a rock.
If they hold on to them, there value will slowly be eroded by an inflation rate
that exceeds the interest being paid on the t-bills.
Either way, they will get screwed.
China need the US market to sell their cheap goods, so they have to play ball
with Uncle Sam and are willing, for the mean time, to bend over and take it as a
matter of political expediency.