tackett@wivax.UUCP (Raymond Tackett) (07/03/84)
The person who takes passport applications at the Nashua, New Hampshire,
Post Office refuses to accept U.S. currency in payment of the fee. Only
money orders and personal checks are acceptable.
An agency of the United States government refusing its own currency? That
has interesting implications for the "full faith and credit" of the
United States.
Whatever happened to "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and
private"? Is this a government response to Reaganomics?
--
Random Access is IMMORAL!
Ray Tackettevans@wivax.UUCP (Barry Evans) (07/03/84)
I know of some offices/etc which really try to avoid any exchange in
currency, instead they would rather deal with money orders or checks.
One such place is the management office at my apartment. They claim
that there are just too many people around, which might encouraged theft,
and, if this were the case, it would be extremely difficult to trace.
-barry
--
Barry Evans - Wang Institute (617) 649-9731 x383
[apollo, bbncca, cadmus, decvax, harvard, linus, masscomp]!wivax!evans
evans%Wang-Inst@Csnet-Relaydrr@ihopa.UUCP (D. R. Rueckheim) (07/06/84)
Speaking of legal currency in the US, I believe that the
constitution states that the only legal currency is
"gold or silver coins". Also to the best of my knowledge
there has never been an ammendment to the constitution
that has changed that. Is there anyone out there that
can shed some light on this issue.
--
D. R. Rueckheim
..!ihnp4!ihopa!drr
AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, Il.tac@teldata.UUCP () (07/09/84)
, (sop to the blank line eaters--consider it a religious sacrifice)
The problem is that it is legal tender, not payment. Check out the
meanings of the words and you will find that while "tender" could include
money, it is not limited to that. It also is "offered in payment".
Perhaps you will consider this nit-picking, but that is what legal
documents and laws are all about. Harking (harping) back to an old
discussion there is a phrase in the Constitution of the US which
grants to the US Government the authority "To coin Money, regulate
the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights
and Measures;". This taken from my simulated parchment copy of the
Constitution, with the capital letters as they appear in the script
as written. I don't see anything about printing money there, and
since one of the problems that was being solved with this constitution
was rampant inflation caused by continental dollars being printed
as fast as they were needed, it is reasonable to assume that they
chose these words as carefully as they chose all of the others used
in this document.
From the Lecturn of
Tom Condon {...!uw-beaver!teltone!teldata!tac}
A Radical A Day Keeps The Government At Bay.
DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed herein are those of everyone who
matters, but not necessarily anyone you know, and most certainly not
my employers!eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) (07/09/84)
[9 July 1984]
U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8:
The Congress shall have power . . .
2. To borrow money on the credit of the United States; . . .
5. To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, . . .
Article I, Section 10:
1. No State shall . . . coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything
but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; . . .
The authors of the Constitution said what they meant to say in
clear concise language of the time. "To coin" was a verb. It meant
forming a coin of a precious metal with a specific metal content.
The government was guaranteeing that all the coins were of equal,
specific values. Significantly, the rest of 5. above reads
". . . and fix the standard of weights and measures;". Weights and
coinage were related inthose days, so they were placed in the same
clause.
Just a few years before, there had been a hyperinflation of the
continental currency (hence the phrase 'not worth a continental').
To prevent something like that from happening again, they prohibited
the states from emitting bills of credit (unsecured IOU's), and
required the use of gold and silver for debt payments. For many
years these requirements were applied to the federal government too.
Federal Reserve Notes are debt instruments of the Federal
Reserve Bank which issued it. There are 12 FRB's, and the one which
issued a particular FRN is printed on it. The FRB's in turn, are
privately owned by the member banks, although they are a regulated
monopoly.
The backing for a Federal Reserve Note is mostly US Treasury
securities.
Now, the question is, how must FRN's be treated? They are required
to be accepted for 'all debts, public and private', and for payment
of taxes at the federal level. Pre-1965 coins, which had silver in them,
and pre-1934 gold coins, command s substantial premium over FRN's, but
they are still legal. You can logically assert that the older coins
have stayed fixed and the FRN has decreased in value (which is actually
what has happened due to inflation). Thus, a FRN is only worth 10-20
cents.
If you can get your employer to pay you in silver dollars, or arrange
to have a bank deliver such to you for your paycheck, you could claim
your income for federal taxation was only 1/10 as much as the IRS thinks
it should be. They don't give you more than one dollar credit for taxes
paid if you pay with silver dollars, so you shouldn't have to get taxed
for more if you get them. Another use would be to pay silver coin for
a house downpayment, and adjust the sale price downward accordingly.
The seller could avoid showing a gain on the sale, and you might get
property taxes reduced on the basis of the sale price.
The reason governments like paper money is they can make as much
of it as they like. Every paper currency or debased coinage in history
(over 2000 years) has inflated to zero value, which is what they are
actually worth. Governments can't make gold and silver, thus are forced
to be more responsible about spending. The U.S. silver dollar stayed
at the same value from 1793 to 1964. Compare that to the 66% that the
dollar has lost since 1967. Gold and silver emerged among commodities
as the preferred form of money because of high value/unit weight,
scarcity, stability (gold mined 2000 years ago is still around, I have
100 year old silver dollars that look brand new. compare to average life
of $1 paper money, which lasts 18 months.), and most importantly,
general acceptance.
When all else fails, people will still accept gold and silver. They
were used by Vietnam boat people, for example, to buy escape. The
government would have you believe that gold is a 'barbarous relic'.
If that is so, then ask yourself why the US still owns 200 million ounces
of the stuff.
Dani Eder / ssc-vax!eder / Boeing Aerospace Company / mpr@mb2c.UUCP (Mark Reina) (07/10/84)
In the United States Constitution, the phrase "to coin money, regulate the value thereof" grants the Federal Government to print paper money, prosecute counterfeiters, switch from gold and silver backing, and whatever else is deemed necessary by the US Congress. You'll to trust me on this one.
eac@drutx.UUCP (07/10/84)
It is interesting that they were trying to beat inflation with precious metal coinage. In the late 1800's it was just the fact that coinage was made out of precious metals (silver and gold) that prompted the use of silver and gold certificates. The value of the metal was increasing so fast that coins were forced to be made smaller and smaller to keep people from melting them down. This lead to the trend of making the metal worth less than the face value of the coin--which defeated the original purpose of the coin. For example--a "double eagle" (twenty dollar gold piece) was supposed to contain twenty dollars worth of gold. These would go out of circulation quite quickly when the gold in a single coin became worth more than twenty dollars. So now we have come full swing--the actual value of the printed dollar and the coins is practically nill. Only convention dictates that a twenty dollar bill is worth twenty dollars. Betsy Cvetic ihnp4!drutx!eac
dee@cca.UUCP (Donald Eastlake) (07/10/84)
US Constitution
Artilce I, Section 8: The Congress shall have Power ... To coin
Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the
Standard of Weights and Measurers. ...
Article I, Section 10: No >>STATE<< shall ... make any Thing
but gold and silver Coin Tender in Payment of Debts; ...
I think it will be clear to anyone who will bothers to read the
Constitution and the context of these provisions that any resriction to
gold and silver effects only States that are authorizing coins when it
happens that they are being permitted to do so by Congress.
--
+ Donald E. Eastlake, III
ARPA: dee@CCA-UNIX usenet: {decvax,linus}!cca!deescw@cepu.UUCP (07/12/84)
In article <16@ssc-vax.UUCP> eder@ssc-vax.UUCP writes: >[9 July 1984] > [section of the constitution and a reasonable analysis of same] > > Now, the question is, how must FRN's be treated? They are required >to be accepted for 'all debts, public and private', and for payment >of taxes at[...] due to inflation). Thus, a FRN is only worth 10-20 >cents. You can also assume that gold/sliver has inflated in value (more people than oz. gold/sliver, and the ratio gets wors as time goes on). > If you can get your employer to pay you in silver dollars, or arrange >to have a bank deliver such to you for your paycheck, you could claim >your income for federal[...]ust the sale price downward accordingly. >The seller could avoid showing a gain on the sale, and you might get >property taxes reduced on the basis of the sale price. An interesting idea, but not very practical (see end of article). > > The reason governments like paper money is they can make as much >of it as they like. Every paper currency or debased coinage in history >(over 2000 years) has inflated to zero value, which is what they are >actually worth. Actuall this is a reasonable statment, but for a different reason. > Governments can't make gold and silver, thus are forced >to be more responsible about spending. The U.S. silver dollar stayed >at the same value from 1793 to 1964. I'm sorry but this is just not so, there have been several periods of inflation in the interum, in particular during the Civil War (The War of Southern Independence, for those from south of the Mason-Dixon line) brought on by paper currency printed to pay for the war, however the Au$ and the greenback still remained tied together, and greenbacks were all convertable to silver at a 1 to 1 ratio after the war. > Compare that to the 66% that the >dollar has lost since 1967. Gold and silver emerged among commodities >as the preferred form of money because of high value/unit weight, >scarcity, stability (gold mined 2000 years ago is still around, I have >100 year old silver dollars that look brand new. compare to average life >of $1 paper money, which lasts 18 months.) The typical life expectancy of a circulating coin is 10 years. And there is a new type of paper money made from that plastic/paper (the stuff that looks like paper but feels sort of greasy, and you can't tear it at all) that should last even longer that coins (as an aside somewhere in Europe (Ile of Man??) they have been expermenting with it, when they tested the folding/unfolding cycle (paper lasts about 10K cycles) the gave up after 500K cycles). > , and most importantly, >general acceptance. > > When all else fails, people will still accept gold and silver. They >were used by Vietnam boat people, for example, to buy escape. The >government would have you believe that gold is a 'barbarous relic'. >If that is so, then ask yourself why the US still owns 200 million ounces >of the stuff. Interesting, almost $300 per person, sure lets go back to the Gold standard and not have any money in circulation at all (remember a large chunk of that will be horded). -- Stephen C. Woods (VA Wadsworth Med Ctr./UCLA Dept. of Neurology) uucp: { {ihnp4, uiucdcs}!bradley, hao, trwrb, sdcsvax!bmcg}!cepu!scw ARPA: cepu!scw@ucla-cs CORRECTED location: N 34 3' 9.1" W 118 27' 4.3"
dee@cca.UUCP (Donald Eastlake) (07/23/84)
What does the nominal "private ownership" of the Federal Reserve Banks
have to do with anything when they are government controlled? Isn't
buying "stock" in them more like paying a license fee?
--
+ Donald E. Eastlake, III
ARPA: dee@CCA-UNIX usenet: {decvax,linus}!cca!deesimard@loral.UUCP (07/25/84)
[Do not write in this space] >What does the nominal "private ownership" of the Federal Reserve Banks >have to do with anything when they are government controlled? Isn't >buying "stock" in them more like paying a license fee? Seems to me the Fed is not government-controlled. Witness the news accounts of both Congress and the White House complaining about (then) current Fed policy, and attempts to persuade Paul Volcker to change policy one way or another. -- Ray Simard Loral Instrumentation, San Diego {ucbvax, ittvax!dcdwest}!sdcsvax!sdccsu3!loral!simard