Conversation
Notices
-
Embed this notice
The way I see it, the dollar is just a commidity, like cans if tuna or cars. The difference is that it's a negotiable bearer instrument with a fixed par value (face value) l and forced acceptance (for all debts public and private). This form of payment is not historically uncommon in a sense. Prior to the dollar, bank notes were common. You'd give your bank money or bail property (like a pawn shop), and they'd give you a note, and iou. That note could then be negotiated to a subsequent owner. They were typically bearer instruments (meaning the holder is the presumptive owner) and were even severable (you tear a $20 note in half to make it two $10 notes). The difference is that bank notes had no forced value nor acceptance. If you attempted to negotiated a bank note from the bank of Georgia in New York, you would do so at a steep discount to its face value to account for cost of liquidation and/or risk, and it was possible it wouldn't be accepted at all. You also weren't forced to use them. You could trade in furs or metals or beads or chickens, etc.
Thus, the dollar just imitates previous tech, and in fact, you could buy and exchange them for metals, gold and silver, until the fed closed those windows.
Nonetheless, when you can create a commodity ex nihilo and force everyone to trade in it through a legal scheme, you're instantly rich, and everyone else is forced to trade with you, at least indirectly.
-
Embed this notice
No disagreement here. That's why they're called banknotes after all.
-
Embed this notice
I took banking, sales, negotiable instrument, and secured transactions in law school. My professor for those courses is an expert. So much so that the fed called her in to help coordinate the transfer of physical checks nationwide during 9/11 when flights were grounded. They had to use military transport.
She drilled this stuff into me.
?? Humpleupagus ??
:spinnenrad: Eiregoat :spinnenrad:
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the