U.S. Authorities Seize Accounts of Major Bitcoin Operator

Godmachine said:
The value of it is based on how much of it exists in usable form on the market. If its flooded , it gets cheap , if its drying up then it gets more expensive.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with what you're saying but the value is still purely made up. Gold only has value because people gave it value. I can't even eat it, it has little value to me personally (I'd rather trade it in for cornbread).
 
Godmachine said:
For all intends and purposes the commodity market give its best "idea" of what it thinks is available in the market to trade. But because we can buy "futures" now , its instead become a market of pure gamblers that either betting for or against its continued availability in the market place at its current rate.
Click to expand...
And if there isn't a perfect idea of buying something make believe I don't know what is. You buy anything on the commodity market you don't actually get anything other than a tick mark in a digital ledger somewhere that says you "own" x-units of whatever.
 
kirbyrj said:
Greenback is a common slang term for American paper money. Wikipedia is not omniscient.
Click to expand...
Keyword: slang. Point is IRL actual greenbacks are no longer printed fiat currency.

That's all I'm saying, after all he was being technical, so I was as well. Technically, not going off of nicknames/slang (Why would we be doing this?), what I stated is perfectly factual. Just because people incorrectly call something something else doesn't make it right, it makes them uninformed. You can't call current fiat currency issued bills greenbacks when there backs aren't actually green. Well you can, you can do whatever you want, my point still stands though.


In the 1860s, the U.S. created over $400 million in legal tender to finance its war against itself. These were called greenbacks simply because the backs were printed in green. The government backed this currency and stated that it could be used to pay back public and private debts. The value fluctuated according to the North's success or failure at certain stages in the war. Confederate dollars, also issued during the 1800s, followed the fate of the confederacy and were worthless by the end of the war. Source
Click to expand...


Do whatever you want, just don't tell me slang describes something accurately, it doesn't, it never did.
 
 
Current $100 note

%7BCF8AFDD4-A506-45F2-A760-087C026CD92C%7D04252013_hundred_bill_article.jpg


$100 Greenback note

enhanced-buzz-23659-1366836716-3.jpg



(Shrugs) Do what you want. :p I don't (shouldn't) care this much..lol.
 
kirbyrj said:
^^^ While, in principle, I agree with you about your "gold value" argument, virtually no one except yourself is going to argue that greenback isn't a synonymous term for current U.S. Currency slang or not.
Click to expand...

Not to keep this going but you do realize most (if not all) of the descriptions state legal tender but not that it's currently issued legal tender.

Example:

green•back (ˈgrinˌbæk)

a U.S. legal-tender note, printed in green on the back; orig. issued against the credit of the country and not against gold or silver on deposit.
[1860–65, Amer]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/greenback
Click to expand...

I wasn't saying it wasn't (at one point) a printed legal US currency (what your google search states). I was saying it's inaccurate (untrue) to say it's a currently printed legal currency therefor describing current fiat currency using the terminology "greenback" is more false than true.

Another example:

Congress provided in 1878 that the greenbacks then outstanding ($346,681,000) remain a permanent part of the nation's currency.

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/greenback#ixzz2TrDIx7W4
Click to expand...

Yes it's still legal currency, no, it's not currently produced legal currency. Both paper currencies from that era died off (The Federal Reserve Notes took over). People are just calling the new fiat currency the same thing they (the last few generations) called the old fiat currency. Again both paper currencies used back then died off and the current fiat currency doesn't actually have the specifications that make it a "greenback".

Last Example: Federal Reserve Notes

The history of the greenback came full circle when Republican president Richard Nixon abandoned the gold standard in 1971 by preventing foreign countries from trading gold for United States dollars. At this time, Legal Tender Notes were replaced by Federal Reserve Notes, or what is now used as paper money. This paper money continued the tradition of using green inks, thus retaining the nickname "greenback." Federal Reserve Notes went through a redesign beginning in 2003, and as a result only the $20 bill still uses green as its main color. Source
Click to expand...

It's not green on back and it's a totally new fiat currency not backed by the government but by private banking cartels so I'm personally not sure how anyone could call it the same thing it used to be called.
 
mope54 said:
I always get a kick when pedants don't bother reading the first line from their own links..."
Click to expand...
lol It's not green on the back and it's a totally new fiat currency not backed by the government but by private banks so I'm personally not sure how anyone could call it the same thing it used to be called. Yeah that (old) money is gone and we use all new paper money now, and it's not mostly green in color either. Not too hard to see when you look. http://www.dailywritingtips.com/50-slang-terms-for-money/

(That link is also stating what you're saying is (was) true but that it's also) Time to update your slang for our current fiat currency. :D The fact you're going to continue to call a currency not mostly green a "greenback" purely because you can't adapt is funny.

fear.png

Federal Reserve Notes went through a redesign beginning in 2003, and as a result only the $20 bill still uses green as its main color.
Click to expand...
Man I hope they change it to [insert color here] instead so I can watch you still call it a greenback because other people do. Good day!
 
MasonD said:
I don't disagree with what you're saying but the value is still purely made up. Gold only has value because people gave it value. I can't even eat it, it has little value to me personally (I'd rather trade it in for cornbread).
Click to expand...

I have to agree but its always "best guess". There is no way for us to truly show its exact availability because of how rarely traced its been for so long now. We instead probably base it off the current amount in the exchange market place and its rate of flow in and out of the market.

It doesn't really matter anymore for this type of Government anyway , Fort Knox is a joke and the Government won't even let us see inside it to see if the gold even there anymore (many suspect its not) and now we are a system that uses "debt" to pay for everything.

That's why turning over all forms of physical currency even though the Government is effectively "printing" its money without something to back it other than its raw output as an economy is absolutely insane. It will strip out everything we have left of the system and replace it with a true martial state that we will become complete slaves to (worse than we are now).

sfsuphysics said:
And if there isn't a perfect idea of buying something make believe I don't know what is. You buy anything on the commodity market you don't actually get anything other than a tick mark in a digital ledger somewhere that says you "own" x-units of whatever.
Click to expand...

True. You don't actually get a barrel full of gold bars or something to that effect. You get a "promise" to honor that amount through the financial system but as we can see that is an easily abused system and poorly regulated at this point.

There is no "perfect" system we can switch over to that will eclipse what we have , we can only make small adjustments to the system we have , bring ourselves OUT of debt and regulate it properly to prevent what happened in 2008 from ever happening again. Perhaps in time the system itself will give rise to a better more advanced form but we should focus inward for the time being.
 
Godmachine said:
I have to agree but its always "best guess". There is no way for us to truly show its exact availability because of how rarely traced its been for so long now. We instead probably base it off the current amount in the exchange market place and its rate of flow in and out of the market.

It doesn't really matter anymore for this type of Government anyway , Fort Knox is a joke and the Government won't even let us see inside it to see if the gold even there anymore (many suspect its not) and now we are a system that uses "debt" to pay for everything.

and this

It will strip out everything we have left of the system and replace it with a true martial state that we will become complete slaves to (worse than we are now)
Click to expand...
I agree with all (or enough) of this.

That's why turning over all forms of physical currency even though the Government is effectively "printing" its money without something to back it other than its raw output as an economy is absolutely insane.
Click to expand...

I disagree with this because congress isn't in control of the money printing. Banks are (technically the non-federal reserve is) in control of it and then they loan it to the government and in repsonse our government protects all actions with pure might (over what's right). [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CaYuss28HQ"]This abnormal guy said the same thing right before he lost his seat...lol. [/URL]

The current easiest answer we the people have is to just go back to a debt free based fiat currency AKA the difference between (some of) the old fiat currency no longer in use (hint, hint) and today's debt based private bank owned fiat currency (hint, hint).

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws."
- Mayer Amschel Rothschild

(I know, I know, overused and out of context...sure thing Sapien)
Click to expand...

H.R. 2990 (112th): National Emergency Employment Defense Act of 2011

Declaring that "the creation of money by private financial institutions as interest-bearing debts should cease once and for all,"[3] the NEED Act would abolish what is referred to as fractional reserve banking by prohibiting the creation of credit lent out against deposits held by private institutions;[4] eliminate the quasi-independent[5] status of the Federal Reserve System;[6] and grant the U.S. Department of the Treasury, on behalf of Congress, the exclusive authority to originate money.[7] The legislation would also bar the federal government from all future borrowing,[8] institute an 8% cap on interest rates across the country,[9] mandate that new money spent into circulation include annual block grants to the States,[10] and establish a Monetary Authority inside the Treasury to manage national monetary policy

Status of bill: Died
Click to expand...

And since I took it here I'll also include this. Don't tell me how he's a dumb comedian....you can't forcibly inject me with more truth than he just said in three minutes.

Thread derail = my bad :eek: :eek: :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top