Why not just print dollars?

[Newcoins2020]

It won't be a great idea, because printing money won't have a value is just money you know only the value is the gold in the bank what they have. And when they print more fiat money I think people will have some difficulties.

[jaysabi]

For me, the fact that you can withdraw your money at any time means there is no loss of right to use your money

Okay, but what if the bank defaults (and there is no FDIC to pay you back), would (could) you lose your money?

Yes, this is a risk, but not a forfeiture of a right. There's a risk to hiding money in a mattress (theft, fire, etc.) and a risk to holding money in general (inflation), but risks are not forfeiture of rights. There's risk in everything you do with money, but I still distinguish between a risk of any action and the loss of a right to use your money. But if you're talking about risks of the banking system, I think I understand your point better. I just don't think it's accurate to describe that as a limitation of your rights.

My point is not about risk as you are seemingly trying to put it. When I say about the bank going bust (you losing money), I mean that you give up control of the money, i.e. transfer control over the money to the bank. It doesn't matter that you can reestablish that control any time. Indeed, you could also say that when you put money under the mattress you are also, in a sense, transferring control of it to the mattress. But in the latter case this has no legal consequences. You can't drag your dirty mattress to a court for squandering your shekels, lol...

I assume that leaving your car in a garage is not the same as renting it out (legally speaking)

I lost this conversation quite awhile ago and have made my way back to it.

If you want to call it control, that's fine. Then yes, you have to give up control of the money when you deposit it in the bank. That's inherent in the action and plainly obvious, the same as when you put down any object you were previously holding, you have given up control over it until you pick it back up. Originally, you were talking about "rights." Giving up control (if that's how you want to distinguish it) and giving up rights are not the same. I only took issue with the concept that you give up your right to your money by putting it in the bank. You don't. You do give up control until you withdraw it.

[jaysabi]

IRS Form 8300 still applies strictly to transactions in the course of a trade or business transaction and has the giant exemption that excludes personal checks. It's not quite the case you're making it to be. Individuals who receive $10,000+ in cash for selling any item outside the course of business, receive a gift, or receive the money via a personal check do not have to file IRS Form 8300.

You seem to have forgotten what I started with

...companies (the major owners of the "digits on the computer") are not allowed to deal in cash

So my case is exactly that case, lol

Indeed, it seems I did. But "not allowed" is still not accurate. They're allowed, they just have paperwork to file if they do. The BSA is a pretty invasive law.

[mudiko]

The value of money is not coming from gold nowadays.  Its more complex than that

[smith coins]

The value of money is not coming from gold nowadays.  Its more complex than that

Who said that money comes from gold, if it is so there are many other high valued metals. Printing it's not a good idea, everything is going digitized.

[Amph]

The value of money is not coming from gold nowadays.  Its more complex than that

Who said that money comes from gold, if it is so there are many other high valued metals. Printing it's not a good idea, everything is going digitized.

what he said, is that the value is not backed by metal in general, it's is coming by the internal trading that bank do with their own debt, it's basically a big mess, an internal scam

there is a good vide about this, people should watch it, the biggest scam in the history of mankind, it explain how the whole monetary system work

[deisik]

If you want to call it control, that's fine. Then yes, you have to give up control of the money when you deposit it in the bank. That's inherent in the action and plainly obvious, the same as when you put down any object you were previously holding, you have given up control over it until you pick it back up. Originally, you were talking about "rights." Giving up control (if that's how you want to distinguish it) and giving up rights are not the same. I only took issue with the concept that you give up your right to your money by putting it in the bank. You don't. You do give up control until you withdraw it.

Yes, I was. Given that you can hardly share control over money with someone else (in a strict sense), isn't it, well, right to consider control over something as an integral part of your rights over it? Rights are not something abstract, they are what you can do with or to a thing...

For example, use it, profit by it, sell it (or otherwise get rid of it), etc

[deisik]

No real money exists any more, its just numbers, and don't forget this debt can never be repaid.
What a fkn scam 

The problem is not with money itself, whether it is fiat or whatever else. Money failure is most often a failure by way of corruption, abuse, or just plain stupid mismanagement...

The fiat money is simply more prone to these vices

[onlinn]

 Suppose you have a cake. You hand out tickets to people so they can each get a piece. If you hand out a thousand tickets, either you're going to have to slice the pieces very, very thin, or a lot of people are just going to have worthless tickets. If you hand out just two, each person can have quite a bit of cake. The value of the tickets, then, depends a lot on how many you hand out.

That's basically what money is. It's a promise to pay from the government. You get the money and you can trade it with people in that country for stuff. And just like with the cake, if suddenly tons of people have money, either the money ends up being worth very little or most of the people with money get nothing for it.

A good example of this from history was Germany in 1922. Faced with a sagging economy and forced to pay massive debts as reparations for World War I, the government started printing money as fast as they could to meet these demands. Paper mills and printing presses were LITERALLY running as fast as they could night and day. Over a period of six months or so, the value of the German mark dropped 3.7 MILLION times! What you could once buy for a mark now cost four million marks. People literally lugged around suitcases full of money to pay bills. Absolutely crazy stuff.

[greBit]

No real money exists any more, its just numbers, and don't forget this debt can never be repaid.
What a fkn scam 

The problem is not with money itself, whether it is fiat or whatever else. Money failure is most often a failure by way of corruption, abuse, or just plain stupid mismanagement...

The fiat money is simply more prone to these vices

the good thing about bitcoin is that it is totally under our control, supervision and management and not the corrupt bureaucratic bodies.

[jaysabi]

If you want to call it control, that's fine. Then yes, you have to give up control of the money when you deposit it in the bank. That's inherent in the action and plainly obvious, the same as when you put down any object you were previously holding, you have given up control over it until you pick it back up. Originally, you were talking about "rights." Giving up control (if that's how you want to distinguish it) and giving up rights are not the same. I only took issue with the concept that you give up your right to your money by putting it in the bank. You don't. You do give up control until you withdraw it.

Yes, I was. Given that you can hardly share control over money with someone else (in a strict sense), isn't it, well, right to consider control over something as an integral part of your rights over it? Rights are not something abstract, they are what you can do with or to a thing...

For example, use it, profit by it, sell it (or otherwise get rid of it), etc

I understand your point on a philosophical level, but I draw a hard distinction between your right to your money and your control of it. I only view a "right" as something that originates under the rule of law, but control is simply the ability to move it. You can cede control over money without sacrificing any legal ownership claim to it. I think both of the points we were making actually work in tandem.

[deisik]

If you want to call it control, that's fine. Then yes, you have to give up control of the money when you deposit it in the bank. That's inherent in the action and plainly obvious, the same as when you put down any object you were previously holding, you have given up control over it until you pick it back up. Originally, you were talking about "rights." Giving up control (if that's how you want to distinguish it) and giving up rights are not the same. I only took issue with the concept that you give up your right to your money by putting it in the bank. You don't. You do give up control until you withdraw it.

Yes, I was. Given that you can hardly share control over money with someone else (in a strict sense), isn't it, well, right to consider control over something as an integral part of your rights over it? Rights are not something abstract, they are what you can do with or to a thing...

For example, use it, profit by it, sell it (or otherwise get rid of it), etc

I understand your point on a philosophical level, but I draw a hard distinction between your right to your money and your control of it. I only view a "right" as something that originates under the rule of law, but control is simply the ability to move it. You can cede control over money without sacrificing any legal ownership claim to it. I think both of the points we were making actually work in tandem.

My whole point was that the idea of right is not something elemental which can't be further reduced to its constituent elements. On the contrary, these elements (property-rights regimes) can be separated from each other, i.e. bestowed or waived independently in real life...

But then again, I'm not a lawyer

[kevin go]

i think that is a good idea by printing money but if everone can print a money im sure no one will work again..
everyone will busy in printing money and money has no value...its why printing money doesnt allowed...

[Amph]

i think that is a good idea by printing money but if everone can print a money im sure no one will work again..
everyone will busy in printing money and money has no value...its why printing money doesnt allowed...

they probably print more based on inflation, if the inflation per year is low enough, they will print more, knowing that they have margin, otherwise they stop

this year inflation seems a bit higher than the last year, which was the lowest since 2010

[arbitrage]

Freedom is most precious!
Think twice when you are gambling, money you can loose and earn if you are free.
When you are behind a bars you could easily become somebody's bitch!

[kheein]

if more money is printed, there will be inflation, the same thing why bitcoin bitcoin from year to year due to the high price limited amount of bitcoin.

[Rotator]

Printing money causing bubble to grow more and more
until it burst..We must go back to gold standard!

[dunfida]

Printing money causing bubble to grow more and more
until it burst..We must go back to gold standard!

The money printing by the FED through QE has created the oil price bubble. It is bursted now, taking down the world economy with it.

When the oil price drops, oil companies are in trouble. They cannot repay the loans to the banks. Banks are also in trouble.

[n691309]

As we know the cash money is printed every time and often because it is a material which can be destroyed easily, but doing this the value of a dollar decreases as we know.

[Rostadom]

The Fed and European Central Bank have printed load of money. That inflate the asset price and cause the recent trouble.