Slashdot Mirror

Wide swings in value is not a "con" - it's a non-starter for the general public. Ask the Weimar or anyone unfortunate enough to live in Venezuela.

...or anyone that used gold for that matter. People want a currency that has stable value, and that means the currency supply must expand with demand for said currency. Bitcoin's creators assumed rising demand for Bitcoin would spur more mining activity. However, they made it too costly to mine, and the supply dried up. New currencies can learn from this and make mining less expensive to stabilize prices.

Solving this money supply issue would be a very useful and novel invention. This is currently a task that's performed by humans, and far from perfect.

You're in their debt and they are legally required to accept cash as payment for that debt.

Got a citation for that?

Well, there is this Federal Reserve page, which you also quoted:

Section 31 U.S.C. 5103 ... means that all United States money as identified above is a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor.

It's absolutely true that no one is obligated to accept cash for goods or services. One can instead require payment by some other means in advance, in which case there is no debt. Once goods or services have been provided on credit, however, a debt exists, and one cannot legally claim that this debt remains unpaid after full payment in legal tender has been offered and refused.

IANAL but AFAIK it's an administrative ruling from the Fed, which has the force of law unless there's superceding legislation.

https://www.federalreserve.gov...
Is it legal for a business in the United States to refuse cash as a form of payment?
Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," states: "United States coins and currency [including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks] are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."

This statute means that all United States money as identified above is a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person, or an organization must accept currency or coins as payment for goods or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether to accept cash unless there is a state law which says otherwise.

Youâ(TM)re in their debt and they are legally required to accept cash as payment for that debt.

Got a citation for that? Such as a court case, or a statement from a government office?

"There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person, or an organization must accept currency or coins as payment for goods or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether to accept cash unless there is a state law which says otherwise."

https://www.federalreserve.gov...

Actually, to quote the Federal reserve:
"This statute means that all United States money as identified above is a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person, or an organization must accept currency or coins as payment for goods or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether to accept cash unless there is a state law which says otherwise."

So, no, they do not have to accept cash. They probably don't argue with you, because they probably don't know the law, but if Starbucks wants to require you to py with a Credit Card Starbucks can require you to pay with a card.

It is if they accept cash. The Federal Reserve says:
"all United States money as identified above is a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person, or an organization must accept currency or coins as payment for goods or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether to accept cash unless there is a state law which says otherwise."

There was one recently on slashdot: https://www.federalreserve.gov...

More to the point, I think the affirmative claim that needs evidence is that "Millennials are different than any previous generation in how hard they work or what they want". Do you have backing for that?

What you think is wrong. The Federal Reserve explicitly state on its website that businesses are not required to accept cash.

https://www.federalreserve.gov...

https://www.federalreserve.gov...

There isn't any legal requirement to accept cash for payments.

https://www.federalreserve.gov...

The key word in that notice is "debts". It doesn't apply to payments for goods or services.

https://www.federalreserve.gov...

Um, no:

The Federal Reserve says this is perfectly acceptable, unless prohibited by state law:

> This statute means that all United States money as identified above is a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person, or an organization must accept currency or coins as payment for goods or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether to accept cash unless there is a state law which says otherwise.

https://www.federalreserve.gov...

A coffee-shop is not a creditor. Your own government weighs in on this issue: https://www.federalreserve.gov...

Mind you you could simply click on the link to "creditor" in your own reference to see that too.

That is not the case for private businesses, it depends on state law.

https://www.federalreserve.gov...

With so many pretending that they actually know how the economy works please find US Federal Reserve Act.

I'm still trying to figure it out myself. Somehow though, I think presidents are more the tail than they are the dog.

And some presidents are a region really close to the tail...

With so many pretending that they actually know how the economy works please find US Federal Reserve Act.

I'm still trying to figure it out myself. Somehow though, I think presidents are more the tail than they are the dog.

Actually, the Federal Reserve is not privately owned.

Are you sure?

I don't know. Are you unable to read wikipedia?

I prefer to go straight to the Federal Reserve Act to sort it out from there.

Are you sure?

Yup. The US Federal Reserve System is a stand-alone government entity, like the National Park Service or the IRS.

I can see where you're confused. I checked the Federal Reserve Act. The Government part is the Board of Governors, the rest is corporate. Otherwise you wouldn't have a "Chairman of the Board". Nor would you have Section under the Federal Reserve Act for appointing a board. I was only trying to point out it was privately owned, which it clearly is, not that it was privately controlled - which it looks like it is according to the act.

What trips some people is the fact that the Fed uses multiple private banks to perform its duties instead of a single government bank like in most of other countries.

Well that's the privately owned part I was talking about. The thing that *really* trips me up is Section 4, Part 4 of the Federal Reserve Act

refers to its organization as a corporation:

4. General corporate powers

Upon the filing of such certificate with the Comptroller of the Currency as aforesaid, the said Federal reserve bank shall become a body corporate and as such, and in the name designated in such organization certificate, shall have power--

First. To adopt and use a corporate seal.

Second. To have succession after the approval of this Act until dissolved by Act of Congress or until forfeiture of franchise for violation of law.

Third. To make contracts

Fourth. To sue and be sued, complain and defend, in any court of law or equity.

Fifth. To appoint by its board of directors a president, vice presidents, and such officers and employees as are not otherwise provided for in this Act, to define their duties, require bonds for them and fix the penalty thereof, and to dismiss at pleasure such officers or employees.

It goes on with directors and so on then Section 24 talks about how to qualify shareholders. If it wasn't privately owned, which is true otherwise Section 24 would not exist however I wasn't trying to claim it was a corporation, which now I've had a look at the Act, it clearly is arranged that way, a Chartered Corporation (I think).

Btw - I already pointed out the List of federal reserve shareholders (The private owners) to Mr AC in case you were interested.

This is no different from Pentagon using Boeing or Lockheed to build its planes.

So the government uses the banks to set its monetary policy for the taxpayer. hmmmm, I'm not sure that's such a good idea.

Perhaps it is time to question your assumptions?

Are you sure?

Yup. The US Federal Reserve System is a stand-alone government entity, like the National Park Service or the IRS.

I can see where you're confused. I checked the Federal Reserve Act. The Government part is the Board of Governors, the rest is corporate. Otherwise you wouldn't have a "Chairman of the Board". Nor would you have Section under the Federal Reserve Act for appointing a board. I was only trying to point out it was privately owned, which it clearly is, not that it was privately controlled - which it looks like it is according to the act.

What trips some people is the fact that the Fed uses multiple private banks to perform its duties instead of a single government bank like in most of other countries.

Well that's the privately owned part I was talking about. The thing that *really* trips me up is Section 4, Part 4 of the Federal Reserve Act

refers to its organization as a corporation:

4. General corporate powers

Upon the filing of such certificate with the Comptroller of the Currency as aforesaid, the said Federal reserve bank shall become a body corporate and as such, and in the name designated in such organization certificate, shall have power--

First. To adopt and use a corporate seal.

Second. To have succession after the approval of this Act until dissolved by Act of Congress or until forfeiture of franchise for violation of law.

Third. To make contracts

Fourth. To sue and be sued, complain and defend, in any court of law or equity.

Fifth. To appoint by its board of directors a president, vice presidents, and such officers and employees as are not otherwise provided for in this Act, to define their duties, require bonds for them and fix the penalty thereof, and to dismiss at pleasure such officers or employees.

It goes on with directors and so on then Section 24 talks about how to qualify shareholders. If it wasn't privately owned, which is true otherwise Section 24 would not exist however I wasn't trying to claim it was a corporation, which now I've had a look at the Act, it clearly is arranged that way, a Chartered Corporation (I think).

Btw - I already pointed out the List of federal reserve shareholders (The private owners) to Mr AC in case you were interested.

This is no different from Pentagon using Boeing or Lockheed to build its planes.

So the government uses the banks to set its monetary policy for the taxpayer. hmmmm, I'm not sure that's such a good idea.

Perhaps it is time to question your assumptions?

Are you sure?

Yup. The US Federal Reserve System is a stand-alone government entity, like the National Park Service or the IRS.

I can see where you're confused. I checked the Federal Reserve Act. The Government part is the Board of Governors, the rest is corporate. Otherwise you wouldn't have a "Chairman of the Board". Nor would you have Section under the Federal Reserve Act for appointing a board. I was only trying to point out it was privately owned, which it clearly is, not that it was privately controlled - which it looks like it is according to the act.

What trips some people is the fact that the Fed uses multiple private banks to perform its duties instead of a single government bank like in most of other countries.

Well that's the privately owned part I was talking about. The thing that *really* trips me up is Section 4, Part 4 of the Federal Reserve Act

refers to its organization as a corporation:

4. General corporate powers

Upon the filing of such certificate with the Comptroller of the Currency as aforesaid, the said Federal reserve bank shall become a body corporate and as such, and in the name designated in such organization certificate, shall have power--

First. To adopt and use a corporate seal.

Second. To have succession after the approval of this Act until dissolved by Act of Congress or until forfeiture of franchise for violation of law.

Third. To make contracts

Fourth. To sue and be sued, complain and defend, in any court of law or equity.

Fifth. To appoint by its board of directors a president, vice presidents, and such officers and employees as are not otherwise provided for in this Act, to define their duties, require bonds for them and fix the penalty thereof, and to dismiss at pleasure such officers or employees.

It goes on with directors and so on then Section 24 talks about how to qualify shareholders. If it wasn't privately owned, which is true otherwise Section 24 would not exist however I wasn't trying to claim it was a corporation, which now I've had a look at the Act, it clearly is arranged that way, a Chartered Corporation (I think).

Btw - I already pointed out the List of federal reserve shareholders (The private owners) to Mr AC in case you were interested.

This is no different from Pentagon using Boeing or Lockheed to build its planes.

So the government uses the banks to set its monetary policy for the taxpayer. hmmmm, I'm not sure that's such a good idea.

Perhaps it is time to question your assumptions?

Are you sure?

Yup. The US Federal Reserve System is a stand-alone government entity, like the National Park Service or the IRS.

I can see where you're confused. I checked the Federal Reserve Act. The Government part is the Board of Governors, the rest is corporate. Otherwise you wouldn't have a "Chairman of the Board". Nor would you have Section under the Federal Reserve Act for appointing a board. I was only trying to point out it was privately owned, which it clearly is, not that it was privately controlled - which it looks like it is according to the act.

What trips some people is the fact that the Fed uses multiple private banks to perform its duties instead of a single government bank like in most of other countries.

Well that's the privately owned part I was talking about. The thing that *really* trips me up is Section 4, Part 4 of the Federal Reserve Act

refers to its organization as a corporation:

4. General corporate powers

Upon the filing of such certificate with the Comptroller of the Currency as aforesaid, the said Federal reserve bank shall become a body corporate and as such, and in the name designated in such organization certificate, shall have power--

First. To adopt and use a corporate seal.

Second. To have succession after the approval of this Act until dissolved by Act of Congress or until forfeiture of franchise for violation of law.

Third. To make contracts

Fourth. To sue and be sued, complain and defend, in any court of law or equity.

Fifth. To appoint by its board of directors a president, vice presidents, and such officers and employees as are not otherwise provided for in this Act, to define their duties, require bonds for them and fix the penalty thereof, and to dismiss at pleasure such officers or employees.

It goes on with directors and so on then Section 24 talks about how to qualify shareholders. If it wasn't privately owned, which is true otherwise Section 24 would not exist however I wasn't trying to claim it was a corporation, which now I've had a look at the Act, it clearly is arranged that way, a Chartered Corporation (I think).

Btw - I already pointed out the List of federal reserve shareholders (The private owners) to Mr AC in case you were interested.

This is no different from Pentagon using Boeing or Lockheed to build its planes.

So the government uses the banks to set its monetary policy for the taxpayer. hmmmm, I'm not sure that's such a good idea.

Perhaps it is time to question your assumptions?

"Some observers mistakenly consider the Federal Reserve to be a private entity because the Reserve Banks are organized similarly to private corporations."

https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htm

That took literally less than 30 seconds to check.

Well according to the link you sent me it says: (1) a central governing board--the Federal Reserve Board of Governors; (2) a decentralized operating structure of 12 Federal Reserve Banks; and (3) a blend of public and private characteristics.

So, it has a board (1), Shareholders (2) and (3) if it looks like a duck and quacks....

FYI - here is a list of the FEDs 12 shareholders- - Rothschild Bank of London - Rothschild Bank of Berlin - Lazard Brothers of Paris - Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy - Warburg Bank of Amsterdam - Warburg Bank of Hamburg - Lehman Brothers of New York - Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York - Goldman, Sachs of New York - Chase Manhattan Bank of New York

Well I guess you can scrub Lehman Brothers. So the FED says it's organized similarly to private corporations but it isn't the same thing. Uh Huh! very interesting.

I'm gonna leave you with Section 10 of the Federal Reserve Act where they talk about appointing members of the Board. All I had to do is read the link you sent me - thanks.

Banks can't print money these days. The bank must first have $2000 in deposits before it can loan out $2000. (As an aside, the bank can write an insurance policy for $2000 without the full amount on hand, but we don't need to consider that form of increasing the money supply to see that it increases.)

In the US, the monetary basis is something like 11:1, which means a bank with $1,000 can loan out $11,000. It's a bit more complex than that, with 33:1 in the low-reserve-ratio range and 10:1 in the larger range. Small banks with minimal bail-out costs can loan a lot more than they have on hand.

Historically, the US has done very little of that.

Actually, that is exactly what the US does. We alter treasury bond rates to create a difference between the amount borrowed and the amount owed, and then print up the difference. If the labor applied expands by 1%, we issue more currency in this manner to raise the monetary basis. The fractional reserve system handles the rest: banks have a billion more dollars on hand (newly-minted) and can loan out $10 billion on top of that.

The same goes for inflation: if there is a sort of labor glut or productivity gain leading to falling prices, we issue more currency and run looser monetary policy to cause more purchasing, more income, and more inflation.

For the past 30 years we've looted the social security trust fund dry instead, but that ran out.

When the Social Security program was established, we created a new Treasury debt object for the Social Security Trust fund. The debt object can only be held by Social Security and cannot be sold. It has fixed maturity.

For every surplus dollar, retaining that dollar (not spending it) is equivalent to un-issuing currency (un-printing money). This reduces spending and slows the economy down. To correct for this, the Trust buys Treasury Debt Objects and holds them until there is a deficit. During Social Security deficit, the Trust calls the Treasury on those debts. This derives the payouts from economic growth.

Social Security is insolvent when it runs out of debts to call. Every penny paid into the program either has been paid out or is still available to Social Security--it hasn't been looted, raided, or whatever.

The Social Security old-age, survivors, and disability insurance pensions program collects its premium as a tax on wages up to a certain cap. Should that pool of taxable money not represent the same portion of all income, Social Security's capacity to pay shrinks as a proportion of per-beneficiary gross national income. That means our capacity to pay is dependent not simply on raising the Social Security cap with cost-of-living, but rather on raising it and adjusting the tax rate based on cost-of-living and the distribution of income and the number of program recipients.

Imagine what would happen if we didn't adjust the program cap and tax rates correctly.

my point is, the government can do plenty to manipulate the money supply without printing money, through regulation of bank lending practices. And that's the norm in the US, until recently.

You said those lending practices don't exist when you claimed banks can only lend out exactly the cash they have on hand and no more.

the trick the Fed came up with to "print money" would work fine with BTC too, sadly.

Only if you can put on the blockchain that multiple people are holding the same BTC, or create more BTC. BTC is designed specifically to make that impossible, or else you could mine a hell of a lot of BTC right now.

Historically, those who created the most value for society typically obtained the most purchasing power. Today though, it seems like too many are getting too much purchasing power, much more than the value they provide, and others not getting enough. The Economist had a story on this, "The question of extractive elites". Other key words to google are "rent-seeking."

Millenials have runaway education, medical and housing costs. Follow the money to figure out why. Naturally they think capitalism is broken.

Also, with the financial sector, something has to be done to rein it in. There's an interesting debate at the Federal Reserve, the US central bank, about "Cleaning vs Leaning" - letting the financial sector involve itself in (very lucrative to it) excesses, then sticking the society with the externalities (i.e. the bill). The Federal Reserve is wondering whether its role should be to clean up ("Clean") or try to prevent in the first place ("Lean"). You can think of factories polluting - they keep the profit, they dump the effluent so those around the factory incur the costs. Ditto with the financial sector.

The problem with relying on "Distributors" to distribute purchasing power is that they accrue too much power and they are merely human - easily corruptible. The society then grows around that source of profit, like a plant grows to sun. Instead of growing around people seeking purchasing power by providing value to society. See how much power politicians have to today, and how hard they try to get tax money, to spend as they believe with help their re-election chances the most. Distributors will distribute purchasing power to those with the best lobbyists, not those who create the most value for society.

it is lend out 10 to 50 times.

Ironically from someone who demands that others research things, you've provided no support in addition to being totally wrong.

You're taking the reciprocal of the required reserve and treating it as if that applies to all the money deposited in the bank.

If I have $100 and lend you $95 for 6 months, I've reserved 5% of the money and given you 19x the money I held in reserve. But I've still only lent out 95% of the money. I still have $5, and you still have $95. I'll very likely get that $95 back -- plus interest -- after 6 months, so even if it came from Bill's 1 year Certificate of Deposit, there was no need to keep his $100 locked in a safe deposit box. That's why I'm willing to pay Bill interest instead of charging him $5 to guard his $100 for the year.

Thanks for playing "you're bad a math."

Considering that paper checks still account for over 10 billion payments annually, don't expect voice-based purchases to make a blip on any radar in the next 5-10 years. It was just 6 years ago (2012) that ACH payments overtook paper checks. Even after my parents have died and gone to Heaven there will still be people paying by paper check.

Source: https://www.federalreserve.gov...

The last time my parent's wanted to buy me something they saw online: they emailed me the homepage of the store (rather than the direct URL of the item), a description of the item, and asked me to pay for it myself; then they asked me to tell them what the total was so they could snail mail me a check for the exact amount of the purchase. :|

Refusing cash is for idiots, here's why : it voids the debt.

https://www.federalreserve.gov...

• A dollar bill costs about 5 cents to make. and will last a bit more than 5 years (older bills would last less than 2 years). Higher denominations are about 10 cents to make (more anti-counterfeiting measures). If you average them across all denominations, it works out to about 1.5 cents per $1. So the cost of producing the bill amortized per transaction is on the order of hundredths or thousandths of a cent.
• A store owner carrying a bag of the store's receipts for the day to the bank, if he's carrying say $1000 in revenue to a bank 2.5 miles away, that's 5 miles at a IRS-estimated vehicle cost rate of 55 cents/mile, or $2.75 for the round trip. And the cost to carry the bag to the bank is then 0.275 cents per dollar. If that revenue is from 50 transactions ($20 per transaction), that works out to a cost of 5.5 cents per transaction. (I'm deliberately erring on the high side to favor bitcoin. Most businesses I know choose a bank which is much closer. And $1000 revenue per day is about as low as a small business gets.)

How does bitcoin compare?

• Production energy costs are very close to the value of the bitcoin generated. So call it 80 cents per dollar. Nearly two orders of magnitude higher than paper currency.
• Bitcoin deliberately imposes a high energy cost in each transaction. So high that many online stores have stopped accepting bitcoin because the costs have reached several dollars per transaction.

Basically, bitcoin's problem is that it replaced gold's natural scarcity with artificial scarcity produced by imposing a high energy cost to generation and transaction. Consequently, its production and transaction costs are roughly two orders of magnitude higher than traditional currencies. Mathematically, it (blockchain) is a brilliant concept. But it's obvious its developers had little practical knowledge of both monetary economics and day-to-day business economics.

The key word is "debt". Barring a contract clause to the contrary, a debtor in the US must accept USD cash to satisfy a financial debt.

However, when you buy a meal at a restaurant, you are not entering into a debtor:creditor relationship (of course assuming you didn't enter into some bizarre contract with the restaurateur indicating that they had loaned you the money for the meal and you, then, were to repay that loan before leaving the restaurant).

As the Federal Reserve site explains, there is "no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person, or an organization must accept currency or coins as payment for goods or services."

https://www.federalreserve.gov...

A private business does not have to accept cash, unless a State law exists specifying that.

If you are at a restaurant and have already bought and eaten your meal, that means you are in debt to the restaurant and cash must be a valid method of repayment. The instance in which a private business doesn't have to accept cash is if you have to pay upfront, like you would at fast food or a supermarket. In that case the business can refuse the sale unless you paid in their preferred method of cash/credit/bitcoins/handjobs/kitten memes.

https://www.federalreserve.gov... A private business does not have to accept cash, unless a State law exists specifying that.

if payment is offered and If it’s the coin of the realm, how can they legally decline it?

Just because something exists doesn't make it a legal mandate. You're probably confused because you don't understand the legal mandate, even in the USA.

Just because something is legal tender does not mean it needs to be accepted for services rendered. All it means is that legally the *government* and a registered creditor must accept is as a method of extinguishing debt. i.e. the only people who care about legal tender are the government collecting fees and taxes, and your bank which legally must if requested accept or give out payment via legal tender.

Your government has an FAQ on this: https://www.federalreserve.gov...

How adorably naive.

No, banks do not have to have actual bills in a vault. At the moment there are about $1.61 trillion dollars in circulation - that's all the notes and coins. It's only a fraction of the total US money supply.

So, how do you add to your debt when you run a surplus? Simple question. If you can answer that with anything other than "you can't", then you've figured out how they can increase the national debt (which the US Treasury shows at Treasury Direct) while running a surplus.

I did some more research, and the discrepancy appears to be government held debt. The CBO doesn't count bonds issued by the government and held by the government, while the Treasury does. Thus the increase of $113 billion in debt in the Treasury numbers between 1997 and 1998 is from $34.2 billion in additional cash issued (according to the Federal Reserve numbers) and the rest, $69 billion, is bonds issued to the Medicare and Social Security Trust Funds and the Federal Financing Bank.

So to go back to your example above, if I promise myself that I'm going to go to a Movie Theatre and see the final Star Wars movie when it comes out, let's say it's probably going to cost me $20. The question is whether that's a debt incurred today. The Treasury says yes because I promised to spend something, and the CBO says no because I haven't spent anything yet.

Also as to how I can increase my debt when I'm running a surplus, that's easy. I give you an I-owe-you $5 promissory note and collect $5 from you. My debt has increased and I'm running a $5 surplus.

No, according to the CBO, there were real BUDGET surpluses, which only counts the on-budget spending. For example, the Federal Government does not consider spending on Social Security, the US Postal Service, Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae [thebalance.com], and several other large ticket items as "on budget". So you can keep the rest of spending just under budget, but blow trillions on these via borrowing - and still be, per the CBO, under budget and in surplus.

Well that's certainly not right. There's a column for the US Postal Service, and another for Social Security in the chart. Now Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae aren't listed, but then they weren't taken over until 2008, so they wouldn't have been listed for any of the years that I cited, anyway.

This would be akin to you having a $10,000/month take-home pay. You spend $9,000 per month on food, utilities, travel, clothing. You spend $3,000 per month on housing, and you spend $2,000 per month on your IRA/401K. Your total spending is $14,000 - with only $10,000 income. BUT, because you consider housing and your IRA/401K not "on budget", you actually ran a surplus! Never mind that your actual net worth dropped by $4,000 (you accumulated $4,000 of debt - excess spending relative to income). You were below your budget on the other things you want to put into your budget, so you're all good.

Except that doesn't appear to be what has happened. All the items you listed were either accounted for, or in the case of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac not run by the federal government at the time. As an aside, in your scenario, my net worth would only drop by $2000. Assuming that I borrowed money to bridge the gap, I would have incurred $4000 in debt, but also acquired $2000 in assets.

Another interesting thing to note is that the difference between Treasury Direct's Debt numbers and the Congressional Budget Office debt numbers is actually really big. For 1998, the CBO says the debt held by the public is ~$3,721.1 billion, and Treasure Direct says ~$5,526.1 billion in outstanding debt. That's a difference of ~1.8 trillion. According to the Federal Reserve there was about $492.2 billion in currency in 1998, which leaves an unexplained 1,312.8 billion discrepancy between the numbers.

United States coins and currency ... are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues.

This statute means that all United States money as identified above is a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person, or an organization must accept currency or coins as payment for goods or services.

Further translation: all the statute says is that US currency is one (of possibly many) legal ways in which to pay for something. It does not say that it's required to be accepted. Note that there is no mention of whether payment occurs before or after said good are transferred or services are rendered. Source.

While I'm not a corporate finance expert, some explanation can be found here in the latest Federal Reserve Beige Book report:

https://www.federalreserve.gov...

It explains that the United States is FINALLY starting to see an uptick in employment....

Amazingly, that happened shortly AFTER Obama left office...

I guess paying lip-service to actual economics while you're trying to "remake the US economy" along "progressive" lines is the reason why Barack Obama is the ONLY President in US history to never see a year where the economy grew at least 3% during his term.

While I'm not a corporate finance expert, some explanation can be found here in the latest Federal Reserve Beige Book report:

https://www.federalreserve.gov...

It explains that the United States is FINALLY starting to see an uptick in employment, with some labor shortages, which is key to ordinary Americans seeing an increase in their paycheck. Due to the economic outlook of further expected growth, companies that retain employees stand to grow; companies that don't retain their employees during a labor shortage will likely go out of business. So you're correct to be skeptical about generosity, but it IS an attempt to foster goodwill with their existing employees out of corporate self-interest.

As noted above, this is directly from the treasury:

There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person, or an organization must accept currency or coins as payment for goods or services.

https://www.federalreserve.gov...

If you have a case you're citing where SCOTUS required cash payment, then cite it. Otherwise, you are wrong. Businesses absolutely do not have to accept cash.

More info here https://www.patriotsoftware.co... :

Can a business refuse cash?
Federal law makes U.S. currency a legal tender for paying debts. As a small business owner, you must accept dollars for your products or services. This doesn’t mean paper notes. You can accept electronic dollars as payment.

Private businesses can create their own payment policies, including ones that restrict cash payments. You can say that customers must pay with a credit card, check, or money order. You can also ban large bills at your business.

Bottom line—you can accept payments in whatever form you want. Here’s why:

No federal law requires businesses to accept cash.
You only need to accept cash when someone owes a debt. If the customer pays before you provide the product or service, you don’t have to accept cash.
You need to establish a cash payment policy before a transaction occurs. You can’t change your policy mid-transaction or refuse someone’s paper bills when you say that you accept cash. As long as you tell customers upfront that you don’t accept cash, you can refuse cash payments.

Any one can raise pigs or tulips. There #WillOnlyEeverHaveBeen21MM-BTC created. BTC can NOT be Fiated into existence like all existing .gov money. Get a clue + it is already back over $15K. The people "shorting the shit out of BTC" were working with whales at the 4 exchanges to force the price down so the short sellers could make a killing. No need to ever hold or have any direct connection to BTC. on you will see https://www.federalreserve.gov... Percent change at seasonally adjusted annual rates M1 M2 3 Months from Aug. 2017 TO Nov. 2017 6.0 3.5 6 Months from May 2017 TO Nov. 2017 6.5 4.0 12 Months from Nov. 2016 TO Nov. 2017 8.2 4.7 So if M1 of the U$D is up 8.2% over the last 12 Month (the actual definition of inflation) How much the money supply has been inflated. But the reported inflation rate is only 2.2%, what happened to the other 6%? Well it ended up in the pockets of the aristocracy. Don't worry, It will eventually show up and bury the value of your existing savings.

This has always been the case

No it hasn't. Banks are backed by insurance and regulations. If a bank is hacked or robbed I don't lose any of my personal money. It will be covered by insurance. I also have other legal options open to me. You don't have that with bitcoin or exchanges. If a exchange collapses or hacked your money is gone, end of story.

The whole finance industry is run by sharks regardless of the currency they use. Right now the Federal Reserve is printing money and devaluing the money in your pocket as we speak. Do you trust that?

That would be problem if it was true. The Federal Reserve doesn't print money just to print money. In the US and other western countries the monetary supply is carefully controlled. Most new dollars being printed are being used to replace a old dollar taken out of circulation. They do print a little overage to make up for destroyed and horded bills but that is a not a major problem. For a example of what happens when the government prints money with out control look no farther than Zimbabwe.

In fact the federal reserve as been ordering pretty much the same number of bills over the last 10 years. There are some spikes and dips depending on the year but it all seems to average out. Even when they order more bills it doesn't mean those bills go in the circulation. If you read the following article you will see there are no $2 bills ordered in 2017 or for 2018. That is because there are enough still in storage from the 2016 bill run to cover those years.

https://www.federalreserve.gov...

Depending on the denomination ,the cost of printing a US dollar note is between 5.4 cents and 15.5 cents: https://www.federalreserve.gov... [federalreserve.gov]

Some things to take into consideration:
1: The cost does not scale linearly. $50,000 does not cost 50,000 times as much as $1. With bitcoin, it does scale linearly.
2: Most of the US dollars are never printed, but only exist as numbers in banks. Loro clearing houses haven't operated by sending truckloads of bank notes for a long long time.
3: This is production cost, not environmental cost. In some cases, there may be a correlation, but I do not believe this is one of them.
4: Transaction costs are enormously higher with bitcoin. If I give you $10, the cost is minimal. If I transfer $10 in bitcoin to your wallet, the computational costs are staggering.

Depending on the denomination ,the cost of printing a US dollar note is between 5.4 cents and 15.5 cents: https://www.federalreserve.gov...

No they don't. According to this Federal Reserve Survey, they get a lot less than that. And that fee is only on card transactions, which are a small fraction of the "entire economy".

Why are you lying to people about it? That's the more important question.

No they don't. According to this Federal Reserve Survey, they get a lot less than that. And that fee is only on card transactions, which are a small fraction of the "entire economy".

Why are you lying to people about it? That's the more important question.

I don't think this is true. If you owe a *PUBLIC* US business, the law says that acceptance of US Currency is mandatory. Of course, they can accept other things (like Bitcoin/Etherium/etc). As for *PRIVATE* businesses, you are spot on. Just a distinction that should be clarified.

Screw The

No they're not.

Is it legal for a business in the United States to refuse cash as a form of payment?

Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," states: "United States coins and currency [including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks] are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."

This statute means that all United States money as identified above is a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person, or an organization must accept currency or coins as payment for goods or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether to accept cash unless there is a state law which says otherwise.

https://www.federalreserve.gov...

If you're going claim authority ona subject you might want to actually be informed first.

It's not illegal.

Is it legal for a business in the United States to refuse cash as a form of payment?

Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," states: "United States coins and currency [including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks] are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."

This statute means that all United States money as identified above is a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person, or an organization must accept currency or coins as payment for goods or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether to accept cash unless there is a state law which says otherwise.

https://www.federalreserve.gov...

Same as your USD

The USD has a lot of people with big guns saying we need to use it or we'll be arrested (in the US) or even killed (see: wars). They have billion dollar budget agencies to ensure the currency is secure and stable.

So no. It's nothing like bitcoin.

and Gold

This is more true. However, gold has a multi-millennia history backing it. Bitcoin has a, what, 10 year history? Gold is basically a bubble, but one which has stood the test of time. Bitcoin... not so much...

This statement is a lie, pushed by Trump supporters:

"Amazon's founder has added $10.2 billion this year to his wealth and $7 billion since the global equities rally began following the election of Donald Trump as U.S. president on Nov. 8."

The equities rally began on November 7th, the day before the election and the Monday after a two day Federal Reserve meeting on November 1-2nd.

https://www.federalreserve.gov...

During the Fed meeting, stronger language was made to suggest interest rate hikes coming in the future.

You will notice if you look at the markets, the Dow lept more on the Monday than the Tuesday of the election and Wednesday after the election. The climb of the stock market is nothing to do with politics and everything to do with the fact the markets had been waiting in a holding pattern for confirmation of rate changes for months prior.