Here are two exerpts from the Constitution. They both use the word "dollar": What did the founders mean when they used that particular word?
Everyone needs to push back against the abolition of the physical dollar. Stop using your debit card and start carrying cash. It makes it physically real to you in your pocket what your bank account looks like. This makes you less likely to overspend because you have a real reminder in your pocket...
I appreciate the reply, and I agree. However, I'd like someone to actually tell me what the thing was to which they were referring when they used the word "dollar".
A dollar is worth about 18% less than it was in 2020. Thanks Joe. A dollar in 1788, the year the Constitution was ratified, would be worth about $34.28 today, adjusted for inflation. Seriously, interesting question. I don't know the answer, but I'm replying to this thread to learn!
Dollars are the script in which taxes are levied. If the government decided we have to pay our taxes in ping pong balls we would start calculating our wealth in ping pong balls
Ding, ding, ding. So...are we currently in compliance with the constitution with regards to the dollar?
That this was the way that value was calculated at that time, does not mean that the Constitution was prohibiting any future means. Are you suggesting that the Constitution was mandating that all our currency be backed by silver, or at least tied to the fluctuating value of that commodity? Besides, the part about the tax in slaves, is now moot, anyway.
That is a good point to bring up. It is likely the Constitution was not really thought out the best for the long term. At least for some of the details. Some of the terminology used seems like it could end up rather meaningless, or was not solidly defined. Probably the people of that time just assumed those words had obvious meanings and could not imagine those meanings later in time becoming unclear or drastically changing. A dollar at that time contained 371.25 grains (0.7734375 troy ounces) of silver. This was not specifically written into the Constitution. The first U.S. dollar was based on the Spanish dollar which was already popular in trade throughout the Americas. The U.S. dollar had the same size and weight as the Spanish coin.
A 'dollar' is nothing more than a way to store value in order to facilitate what is, under the covers, a simple barter economy, while reducing the complexity of trying to, for example, find just the perfect mix of say, 20 different persons to each exchange labor and/or goods with each other when there is no common ground for a trade. For example I am good at computers and grow egg laying hens, but if you are good at mowing lawns but have no computer problems to solve and are allergic to eggs, we could not make a direct trade without finding one or more other parties whose expertise and needs create cross-pollination in a multi-party trade. Dollars, like any form of currency really, make those multi-party trades easy by storing that value so I can get a lawn guy who doesn't need computer help to mow my lawn for a different tradeable form of renumeration.
There are some Constitutional theorists who argue that the modern US dollar should not be considered a real dollar for the purposes of these two parts of the Constitution. A Constitutional Dollar | Mises Institute
When Biden gets us into global war or societal chaos (whichever comes first) the only usable currency will be things you can eat, drink, shoot, or screw. You can't use gold to eat or drink, and it won't help you survive. Ammunition will be good currency, as well as booze, tobacco and chocolate. Dollars? Even boiled, they don't have much nourishment. When stores are closed and banks are gone... I'll trade my bottle of Jack Daniel's for a couple of chickens and some carrots. Your dollars might provide a few moments of heat... but that's about it.
I assume they were referring to a standard US currency, which in 1808 a 'dollar' was worth about a half ounce of pure silver. Today a dollar will buy about 1/25th of an ounce. But they certainly were not referring to Federal Reserve Notes.... And just FTR we can still 'back' our dollars in silver and gold ...one merely needs to store silver and gold instead of dollars.
Of course, after the collapse money will be worthless. That's obvious. However, at some point thereafter, money will reappear.
Actually, I think they were mandating that money be gold and silver coin. Not "backed by" gold and silver, but that money is the actual coin itself. We know that in the constitutional convention, when arguing over which powers to delegate to congress, someone proposed allowing it to issue bill of credit (their term for paper money), and this suggestion was voted down. And then we have some further references to money in the consitution: "To coin Money" "To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States" And the really interesting one, in my opinion: "No State shall ... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts" It seems pretty clear that they were opposed to paper money and wanted money to remain gold and silver coin.
I would much rather have my dollar back by silver now then some digital keystroke what they are trying to reduce currency to. I still use cash. I go to the bank once a month and get cash for my spending money... And I don't keep more than what I expect to come out per month on auto pay bills in my debit account... The lion shares kept in savings and I walk around with cash in my pocket and use that 90% of the time versus a debit card. It keeps it more real.... I keeps it real. Lol... But really not LOL.
I can see an interesting court case. Imaging this: Seller and buyer agree for seller to perform some service for $100. Seller performs the service. As tender in payment for his debt to the seller, buyer gives seller five $20 bills. Seller says, wtf are these pieces of paper, I want money as tender in payment. Goes to court and says, “Hey, State of Pennsylvania, I want tender in payment for this debt to be $100 in either silver or gold coin.” What happens then?
"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."- US Constitution Article one section ten The U.S. Dollar is a specific weight of silver, 371-1/4 grains fine silver like Bezukhov said. It was based on the Spanish Milled Dollar. The USD, or federal reserve not is not legal tender despite being printed with the claim. Before 1964 our banknotes were bills of credit claiming not only be legal tender but also "...and is redeemable for lawful money at any United States bank". But Woodrow Wilson sold the failing publicly held U.S. Bank to the privately held Federal Reserve Bank in 1913. Paper bills as money is totally contrary to our constitution. Here's another interesting senerio- I want my wage in paid legal tender -silver dollars. And, the minimum wage is seven and a quarter dollars an hour, or about 5-5/8th Troy ounce with a value of about $136 USD. I'll pay my taxes in USD.
Exactly. That’s what I quoted in my earlier post. Constitution? We don’t need no steeenking constitution! That would be another interesting test case. I wonder why no sound money advocate has ever tested this in the court? Or maybe they did and were shot down.
Erwin Schiff (Peter Schiff's old man) tested not paying income tax, because of the legal tender issue if I recall. He was imprisoned by a jury which was a bad call IMO. But again, I can't recall if it was for income tax evasion or defacing curency with an ink stamp refuting the legal tender status of the bills. . Erwin wrote a book titled "How Anyone Can Stop Paying Income Tax". I think he made a strong argument. Ah! I looked it up. Here is the Erwin Schiff Incarceration story straight from the U.S. DOJ - https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/2008/September/08-tax-789.html
Yeah, I’ve heard that story. Pretty stupid of him to do, IMO. A test case like I described, or the one you described would not have the risk of being locked up. It would simply force a decision on state recognition of US gold and silver coins, vs federal reserve notes.
Yeah, I can see it from that perspective , Chickpea, now that you pointed it out. Erwin took on tremendous risk. Still he did make a logical argument.
