quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I'm more referring to money managers leveraging other people's money, for example, the hedge funds and perhaps some pension funds.

investors have their choice of hedge funds in which to invest. If they don't like the leverage, they could choose a different fund. Pension funds are different, but I'm pretty sure ERISA imposes restrictions on debt ratios of certain pension funds.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I don't know a single person who has stated, "I don't send mail because it's too expensive." USPS customers can at any time not use the mail delivery service.

because relative to disposible income, 42 cents is nothing. However, if another service provider could deliver mail for 30 cents a parcal, 42 cents is considerably more expensive.

quote:

Originally posted by atbell I'm thinking that these laws might be something interesting to know about. Any links? Any links to similar laws in other countries? (yeah, that last one's a streatch..)

Well a quick search on my favorite site turned up a few articles about it. I haven't read these cover to cover but they should answer some questions..

http://mises.org/books/denationalisation.pdf <--excellent (but very wordy) analysis competing currencies
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff223.html
http://mises.org/journals/jls/18_3/18_3_3.pdf
http://mises.org/humanaction/chap31sec2.asp
http://mises.org/money/3s5.asp
http://www.lewrockwell.com/huff/huff24.html <--less economics and more pissed off philisophical argument, lol

If you search around wikipedia, they will probably have more details on the various legal tender laws and regulations against private currencies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_tender
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Dollar

quote:

Of course you are only interested in things that are widely accepted as a store of value, we all are. My recomendations would be to get a feild, a distilery, and to begin making booze. In the Russian collapse of the 90's vodka and gas were the main stores of value.

Nothing wrong with that! If the people chose to use vodka instead of paper, then vodka was the superior currency at that time.

quote:

I'm personally very interested in the notion of electronic currency and the implications it has on money supply. WOW has 10 million players and gold is redeamable for money (as far as I understand), so as long as there are WOW addicts it will have some value. A friend of mine briliantly pointed out how Blizzard got gold value drastically wrong in Diablo as it became worthless because of over supply. In that case everyone switched to using rings as currency.

at, I have no idea about blizard money (gold, rings etc) so I can't comment on that...but from your other statements, it sounds like you are itching for the idea of one global currency. Given that the recent trend has been to consolidate currencies (the Euro etc), do you think a single currency would be the most efficient system?

quote:

And that's exactly what has happened over and over again. Currency, being an intangible anything that stores value, has been getting more and more centralized throughout history, not less. Markets got rid of the Frank, the Deutchmark, the Lira (italian?) and these notions were defeated in the early US stores of wealth.

Yes the market made those decisions and the competition between currencies is still going on today. The US dollar loses value against some and gains against others. All currencies float up and down against each other on world markets. This has served us relatively well, and despite the 100+ different currencies that compete every day, commerce around the world is flourishing. Competing currencies on a global scale have not led to inefficiencies and mass confusion and I see no reason why things would be different if we traded them on a much smaller scale. Private currencies could easily be traded against each other in a currency market just as the different national currencies are today. They need not necessarily be convertible into gold or any underlying commodity, but would trade entirely on the word of the issuing bank that it would not debauch its money. As in everything else in a free society, people would make choices on what they believe is best for them and the cream would rise to the top...The most reliable product would win and the garbage would go extinct. The dollar may win the battle and it may not..but I think it should be left to the people to decide.

quote:

But it is still a single standard that opperates without competition and, as you pointed out, operates very well without competition. Not to mention this is even bigger then a government, it is a single international GLOBAL body. The IEEE is a governing body, and it's not even democratic.

Ah but there is a huge distinction. It is a *voluntary* body with *voluntary* membership. The do not have the coercive power of government and can't legally point a gun to your head and demand compliance. People are free to ignore the imposed standards if they wish, but by offering products that don't comply with established standards (voltage requirements in wall outlets, etc) they will be acting against their own best interests because few people will be interested in things that don't work universally.. It is true the IEEE isn't completely democratic and it is by no means perfect..but when your alternative is the coercive power of the state, they are certainly the lesser of two evils. You also need to bear in mind that organizations like the IEEE are created by people on the ground..by people who know what they are talking about...those with intimate knowledge of the technology involved and who understand the principles of standardization. They are infinitely more qualified to create these standards than a few elected officials on a senate subcommittee.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Probably the same way the fed profits from it. The mint/bank would hold deposits (savings) for customers and charge interest on loans.

humour me- what exactly does the fed charge interest on? and who pays it?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN humour me- what exactly does the fed charge interest on? and who pays it?

loans.
banks.

The discount rate is charged directly to banks who borrow from them..but most of the fed's influence comes from their intervention in the treasury markets where they manipulate rates on a much larger scale. What are you getting at pk? I'm sure you knew the answer before asking.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Well a quick search on my favorite site turned up a few articles about it. I haven't read these cover to cover but they should answer some questions.. http://mises.org/books/denationalisation.pdf <--excellent (but very wordy) analysis competing currencies http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff223.html http://mises.org/journals/jls/18_3/18_3_3.pdf http://mises.org/humanaction/chap31sec2.asp http://mises.org/money/3s5.asp http://www.lewrockwell.com/huff/huff24.html <--less economics and more pissed off philisophical argument, lol If you search around wikipedia, they will probably have more details on the various legal tender laws and regulations against private currencies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_tender http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Dollar

This is great!

Thanks for putting it up. I don't have the time to read it right now but I will for sure.

quote:

Nothing wrong with that! If the people chose to use vodka instead of paper, then vodka was the superior currency at that time.

Not at all! Makeing something from resources that are readily available will be a good choice to resist almost any problems. That's why I think investing in tangible assets is the best way to go, especially if you like the product (micro brew, micro brew)

quote:

at, I have no idea about blizard money (gold, rings etc) so I can't comment on that...but from your other statements, it sounds like you are itching for the idea of one global currency. Given that the recent trend has been to consolidate currencies (the Euro etc), do you think a single currency would be the most efficient system?

Not really pushing one way or another, mostly interested in 'Money' in general. At the end of the day the better I know where things are going the better I can make choices, pushing is almost always useless.

...

I'm going to get back to this later.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt loans. banks. The discount rate is charged directly to banks who borrow from them..but most of the fed's influence comes from their intervention in the treasury markets where they manipulate rates on a much larger scale. What are you getting at pk? I'm sure you knew the answer before asking.

well, let's see a break down shall we?

quote:

Interest income Interest on U.S. government securities $28,216 Interest on foreign securities 225 Interest on loans to depository institutions 11 Other income 688 ------- Total operating income 29,140 Operating expenses Salaries and benefits 1,446 Occupancy expense 189 Assessments by Board of Governors 699 Equipment expense 242 Other 302 ------- Total operating expenses 2,878 Net Income Prior to Distribution $26,262 Distribution of Net Income Dividends paid to member banks 374 Transferred to surplus 479 Payments to U.S. Treasury 25,409 ------- Total distribution 26,262 Source: 86th Annual Report of the Board of Governors, p.335.

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Mon...ire/private.htm

Now, call me an accounting noob, but to me this looks like 90% of the fed's funds come from the interest on bonds, and we both know that money is returned to the treasury. So your comments regarding the fed making a profit because they are the currency "makers" are completely misplaced.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 investors have their choice of hedge funds in which to invest. If they don't like the leverage, they could choose a different fund. Pension funds are different, but I'm pretty sure ERISA imposes restrictions on debt ratios of certain pension funds.

Ok, hedge are a bad example. Yea they failed, but their investors are supposed to know what they'r doing.

The thing I'm getting at is a market let loose will inevitably crash and burn. Who gets hurt? Almost always the working class. What did the CEO of Lehman Brothers care if they went bust. The man is probably a millionaire many times over.

quote:

because relative to disposible income, 42 cents is nothing. However, if another service provider could deliver mail for 30 cents a parcal, 42 cents is considerably more expensive.

Who, in there right mind, would even put down venture capital to start a postal service is beyond me.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN well, let's see a break down shall we? http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Mon...ire/private.htm Now, call me an accounting noob, but to me this looks like 90% of the fed's funds come from the interest on bonds, and we both know that money is returned to the treasury. So your comments regarding the fed making a profit because they are the currency "makers" are completely misplaced.

Expect this to be repeated over and over and over again.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Ok, hedge are a bad example. Yea they failed, but their investors are supposed to know what they'r doing. The thing I'm getting at is a market let loose will inevitably crash and burn. Who gets hurt? Almost always the working class. What did the CEO of Lehman Brothers care if they went bust. The man is probably a millionaire many times over.

i guess i would rather put the burden on investors to research their investments. With that said, transparency is key. I don't advocate a repeat of what has happened because there was no transparency, and investors didn't understand the risk profile of their investments because they were deceived (in a way).

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Who, in there right mind, would even put down venture capital to start a postal service is beyond me.

i don't know either, but venture capital went into Fed Ex and UPS. So, it is not unfathomable.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 i don't know either, but venture capital went into Fed Ex and UPS. So, it is not unfathomable.

UPS was founded before industrial scale postal service took over the market. Fedex was the first to pioneer large scale, overnight delivery service. The market is already saturated by giants. No investor in their right mind would put money down on a new postal service. Then again, many entrepreneurs gained success by being out of their minds. Even so, 99% of them fail.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN and we both know that money is returned to the treasury. So your comments regarding the fed making a profit because they are the currency "makers" are completely misplaced.

hmm...yes, I know the fed doesn't make a real profit and I've never said it does.

You must be confusing me with trancer-x pk..

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt hmm...yes, I know the fed doesn't make a profit and I've never said it does.

really? so what did you mean here:

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 exactly how does an issuer of private currency profit from this endeavor?

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Probably the same way the fed profits from it. The mint/bank would hold deposits (savings) for customers and charge interest on loans.

___________________