I was in a little store today along a major interstate highway. There was a 20 and a 1 dollar bill tapped to the counter. I asked the woman about it and she told me they were counterfeit. The 20 looked good enough I probably would have taken it in change without noticing it was fake. She pointed out that there are ridges in the paper. The 1 dollar bill was green like a real one on the front, but orange on the back. If it wasn't for that it looked real.
Now I understand why stores mark my money when I buy something, but I usually get most of my cash at an ATM, except for change, when I buy something. It makes me wonder how many fake bills have crossed my palm, and I never knew?
Counterfeit money might be the reason government wants to go to a cashless banking system, but from what I've heard a computer whiz can clean out someone's bank account without a trace, so that might not be the best option either.
That’s a lie. There is always a record
of where it was transferred to.
Corse it is. I only use cash for garage/yard sales now,
I can pay to any cellphone number, but its not worth
convincing the seller that that’s as good as cash with
a queue of people paying for what they bought.
And I use the phone to pay for everything, much more
secure than using a card.
On Monday, March 25, 2019 at 3:45:52 PM UTC-5, Dogma wrote:
a 20 and a 1 dollar bill tapped to the counter. I asked the woman about it
and she told me they were counterfeit. The 20 looked good enough I probabl
y would have taken it in change without noticing it was fake. She pointed o
ut that there are ridges in the paper. The 1 dollar bill was green like a r
eal one on the front, but orange on the back. If it wasn't for that it look
ally get most of my cash at an ATM, except for change, when I buy something
. It makes me wonder how many fake bills have crossed my palm, and I never
s banking system, but from what I've heard a computer whiz can clean out so
meone's bank account without a trace, so that might not be the best option
I have always wondered about some aspects of money.
I assume that the u.s. mint only replaces old money with new.
What would happen if our govt. printed some extra money and spent it.
Would they be any effects?
'tis amusing just how filled with blind hatred some people
are. No thoughts or complaints about the _huge_ deficit
increase brought about by their heroes.
(The deficit and national debt have zoomed way, way, up
under the current President adn Congress. With the noted
emphasis this has been going on for decades and is nothing
exclusive to them).
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
If you read here on a regular basis, you'd see that a few of us have
complained about just that. Not sure where you get the hatred. I agree
we should be doing some of the green new deal things, but in a sensible
way. AOC is still nuts.
You mean like the Federal Reserve printing $4.5T to buy up our unsold
debt a few years ago?
The result should be inflation and interest spikes but they control
that too, until the world decides the dollar is not trustworthy. Then
shit will go down fast.
The reality is the currency in circulation is a small fraction of the
total money supply.
Since this "reserve currency" idea and the interconnected world
economy in general, is really a new concept, really only about 50-60
years old, we don't know what happens when people lose confidence in
the money. When you look at history it is not pretty tho. As long as
we think paper is money things will be fine but when you print more
paper or it's digital equivalency, than the economy can support, not
so much. The government debt in the US (and a lot of big countries) is
as much or more than their GDP so we are getting there.
Since the failure of the dollar would ripple across the whole world,
everyone keep believing things will be fine.
That's not accurate. The british pound was that a long time
before that and so was what the romans used etc too.
And we do in fact know what happens when the shit hit
the fan very spectacularly indeed in 2008, the USD did
even better than it had previously done, essentially because
it was a better prospect than any of the other candidates.
Yes, but the USA hasn't actually been stupid enough to do that.
But the US particularly had a much higher govt debt
as the war ended and that worked out fine anyway.
The problem has always been, if the world looses confidence in the
USD, which currency would replace it. There isnt one that can do that.
There's a reason that China choose to put
the bulk of their trade surplus in USDs,
Money used to be backed with a hard asset like metal
That was simply the reality that nobody wanted to ride the dollar down
so they propped it up.
We are really approaching that day. A significant amount of our debt
is for entitlements that can not be rolled over. They have to cash
those bonds from revenue we are not willing to raise. SS and Medicare
are already dipping into the general fund to pay their obligations.
You can't compare the post war 40s and 50s to today. We actually paid
down that debt but it is going straight up now.
My point exactly. Money might be gold, ammo and MREs.
They already had those dollars. We gave them the money for their
It was always sold that way and as long as the intake covered the
outgo they could perpetuate the lie but now that they are going to the
general fund for benefits, people are starting to ask what happened to
all of that money they were supposed to be saving.
You just did
Doubling in 8 years is pretty much straight up.
Just because we have whistled through the graveyard for 50 years does
not mean there is no danger out there. History is full of failed
states, including those Romans you were talking about.
We don't make that much for them to buy and give us that money back.
Only by the most superficial politicians. It can't
have ever worked that way given that it isnt
possible to start that way. It always has to use the
current incoming to pay for the current outgoing.
It isnt a lie, just an over simplification of how it works.
There is no 'fund' in that sense.
Because they don't understand how it actually works.
Nothing even remotely like straight up.
Doubling in one day is straight up.
And it wont double in the next 8 years either.
That's not what happened.
But the romans didn't fail because of their govt debt.
And far more first world countrys didn't fail,
just faded into much less than they once were,
most obviously with spain and portugal and
the netherlands and even the vikings.
Even with britain, tho its pale shadow of what
it once was at the peak of the industrial revolution
and is no longer the premier economy of the
world its still in the to 4-5 by GDP even now.
We do. We are one of the few countrys in the
world with a net trade balance in our favour.
On Tuesday, March 26, 2019 at 5:22:57 PM UTC-4, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Good grief, where so you come up with these lies? Scott even told you
in this thread, that the SS trust fund doesn't run out for about another
15 years. It's been slowly drawn down and it's continuing. SS is being
paid out of the trust fund, the same place it's been paid from for the
last 80 years.
I agree with that and have said the same thing. US govt debt was higher
at the end of WWII than it is today, but back then much of the world was
in rubble, their manufacturing was in rubble and it all needed to be
rebuilt. The US was the world's manufacturer and the economy could
support a higher debt load. Also, the high debt was piled on over
5 years of war. Once the war was over, the huge spending decreased
instantly. Today, the debt is driven by govt spending across all kinds
of social programs and similar, none of which can or will be turned off
like WWII war spending.
And Trump just added another $2 tril.
And in almost every case, it's all OK, no one cares, until one day
they do care. It's like a stock market crash, no one says, heh,
there is this iceberg out there. Investor sentiment just suddenly
changes one day, and bang.
On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 05:55:36 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
Me writing you a loan is not the same as me giving myself a loan and
at the end of the day federal debt is only as good as the willingness
of the tax payers to pay it back. We don't seem to be that willing to
pay enough tax to honor our debt. We just keep borrowing more.
I keep hearing about how we had higher debt to GDP in WWII. Then the
same people talk about Eisenhower's tax code.
What I don't hear is anyone admitting it will be political death for
anyone who suggested that again. The US is just not that rich now. We
are not the only intact manufacturing hub after a war that devastated
the rest of the world. The reality is we can't afford those tax rates
and still have an economy.
But it wouldn't be political death to do something about the terminal
stupidity that HALF the USA pays no net federal income tax.
That was never the case.
That's bullshit too. And those tax rates arent
necessary to start reducing the federal debt,
some prez since Ike have done that.
And its trivial to stop pissing so much against
the wall on a military system that costs more
than all the rest of the world's military systems
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.