We should start our own currency for NC State and get off the terrible dollar.

It should be called Wolfbucks.

4/11/2012 1:44:25 PM

brb, gotta mine some wolfcoins

4/11/2012 1:46:08 PM

We do have boardbucks, but it's pegged to the dollar.

4/11/2012 1:49:48 PM

gold or bust!

4/11/2012 2:13:17 PM

Pure Gold bucks are the biggest rip off ever.

4/11/2012 2:13:44 PM

The Fed came and arrested someone in Asheville for creating their own currency for local vendors. I think they are currently serving a 15 year jail sentence.

4/11/2012 2:20:29 PM

Alternate currency cannot be tolerated. Doing so would lead to competition in the currency market, and some of the competitors wouldn't devalue their currency at the same rate as the Federal Reserve. Money would shift away from the dollar to these new currencies, which would undermine the activities of the U.S. government.

Control of the money is absolutely vital to controlling the country. You'd have to be an idiot to believe otherwise.

4/11/2012 2:40:17 PM

hooray disney dollars!

[Edited on April 11, 2012 at 2:43 PM. Reason : ,]

4/11/2012 2:43:09 PM

then maybe you shouldn't be talking about this with us. you seem to be very serious about this.

what will we judge the value of a wolfbuck against? how stable are brick prices?

[Edited on April 11, 2012 at 2:45 PM. Reason : xxx]

4/11/2012 2:43:52 PM

You need to come up with a way to print your wolfbucks so that it's very difficult to counterfeit but also be not difficult enough that you can print it yourself.

4/11/2012 2:56:31 PM

The Totally Not Racist Republican women's club in San Bernardino County is way ahead of you.

Quote :

" "If I was racist, I would have looked at it through racist eyes," she said. "I am not racist, which is why it probably didn't register." Club member Kristina Sandoval agreed. "None of us are racists," she said. The use of watermelon, ribs and fried chicken was innocent, she said. "Everyone eats those foods, it's not a racial thing.""

[Edited on April 11, 2012 at 3:38 PM. Reason : .]

4/11/2012 3:37:37 PM

There are a handful of things you can do to really really piss off the federal government.

This is one of them.

4/12/2012 11:34:00 AM

Quote :

"There are a handful of things you can do to really really piss off the federal government."

This is the entire problem with the arguments of "if you're not doing anything wrong you don't have anything to worry about".

It's true, the government probably doesn't give a fuck what you do because you're not important. But if something makes them feel their power is threatened... they'll use all the abilities granted by law.. and then some.

4/13/2012 11:45:31 PM

That's true. I don't like how quickly they clamp down on trivial threats to their power. Way too police-statish.

4/14/2012 2:13:37 PM

That's true. I don't like how quickly they clamp down on trivial threats to their power. Way too police-statish.

4/14/2012 2:13:37 PM

What would you do if someone were to make a currency against your new currency?


The same fucking thing. Compete.

4/14/2012 2:26:15 PM

You people are bat shit crazy - The consumer these days would be absolutely fucked with so many currencies.

Yes, I want to order something on amazon with my god damn completely failing geniusboy pennies

That'll fly

4/14/2012 6:56:32 PM

A gallon of gas still costs a penny of geniusboy.

4/14/2012 7:43:06 PM

Quote :

"Yes, I want to order something on amazon with my god damn completely failing geniusboy pennies That'll fly"

Quote :

"What would you do if someone were to make a currency against your new currency? The same fucking thing. Compete."

Although first quote is basically answered by 2nd quote...

Wouldn't it be amazing if currencies competed? The different issuers would do things to make it more competitive, such as offering a concrete time table of when and how much new currency is issued. Or maybe, just maybe, they would even build up assets without any other claim on them to show that they have credit worthiness. I'm going out on a limb here, but back the currency with something, if you will.

I know! Crazy right. For the currency we use to have value by itself. Maybe people would even prefer this type of currency over the fiat currencies today, which only relies on the stability of a schizophrenic, power hungry, and flamingly fiscally irresponsible government.

yeah... that'll fly.

[Edited on April 14, 2012 at 7:58 PM. Reason : ]

4/14/2012 7:55:54 PM

4/14/2012 8:35:41 PM

Quote :

"Wouldn't it be amazing if currencies competed? The different issuers would do things to make it more competitive, such as offering a concrete time table of when and how much new currency is issued. Or maybe, just maybe, they would even build up assets without any other claim on them to show that they have credit worthiness. I'm going out on a limb here, but back the currency with something, if you will. "

This is a perfect video for you, Mrfrog

Quote :

" John Stossel: SPEAKS TO EX-FEDERAL RESERVE EMPLOYEE http://youtu.be/0qZszkWuADM"

4/16/2012 12:36:33 AM

Quote :

"I know! Crazy right. For the currency we use to have value by itself. Maybe people would even prefer this type of currency over the fiat currencies today, which only relies on the stability of a schizophrenic, power hungry, and flamingly fiscally irresponsible government."

Until Wal-mart offered preferred status to Wal-Mart-Bucks, edging everyone else out of the market, and having defacto control over large regions.

Eventually the people being oppressed by Wal-mart bucks might... form into groups, and use this "power of the people" to create a standardize system of currency that wal-mart can't control with zero accountability to the people that use it... could you imagine such a thing? People banding together to create a government to stop single unaccountable, private entities from becoming autocratic rulers? What would they call this government...


lol, pretty much

The coal companies once were developing their own currency for people to use...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain

[Edited on April 16, 2012 at 1:17 AM. Reason : ]

4/16/2012 1:14:51 AM

Whatever you call that government, there is no question what its first act will be: to start imprisoning people for trying to use the currency of their choice. Something walmart would never be in a position to do.

The right to go shop for your needs elsewhere is the only accountability that matters. Accountability that is unavailable under a government monopoly.

4/16/2012 8:23:33 AM

Libertarians can't discuss anything facetiously because they are so ridiculously eager to air what tiny scrap of knowledge and broken understanding they have of the world around them.

4/16/2012 4:47:46 PM

Libertarians as a species presumably can. I just choose not to because someone is wrong on the internet. And that someone is often you.

4/16/2012 5:10:41 PM

Quote :

"Eventually the people being oppressed by Wal-mart bucks might... form into groups, and use this "power of the people" to create a standardize system of currency that wal-mart can't control with zero accountability to the people that use it... could you imagine such a thing? People banding together to create a government to stop single unaccountable, private entities from becoming autocratic rulers? What would they call this government..."

This is the argument I'm always making! Well, not the part about people joining together against Walmart, it's still possible to have freedom of association about the independent governments in a different world. But then some people might find them government-less. We'll find some way for people to get left behind.


Regarding this talk about currency control though....

I disagree with bitcoin. Why? Because it creates money out of thin air. A better option would be to use a S&P index fund (I would say with a bond composition added). Even better would be ownership in real, hard, physical assets, like power and chemical plants, real estate - basically everything that is high capital and low labor and operating cost. The reason is clear when you think about it, such a currency (provided it was diversified well) would be very very stable. In fact, arguably more stable than the US dollar today. The price of the dollar changes relative to goods and capital today.

To some extent, I agree with the accounting innovations with bitcoin. There is a technical side to this all, and stocks and bonds fix all of that technical side by handing over power to a clearing house. There would have to be an improvement in this to use paper assets as a transaction medium.

Now, all this stated, I just can't understand for the life of me why anyone would argue that counter point - that we should trade in stuff that doesn't have value. But gold bugs will yell "but we agree!", which is partly correct. Gold has value, but it's mostly speculative value. I would favor hard assets that provide something that people active use in their daily lives, because the value of that is much less speculative.

4/17/2012 11:22:50 AM

The value of chemical and power plants fluctuates dramatically over time. As such, it is still theoretically possible for a well-run federal reserve to do a better job of stabilizing the currency than pegging it to fixed capital assets which may some-day need to be demolished.

4/17/2012 11:31:29 AM

That doesn't make any sense. In what world are broad based funds highly volatile? I use the plant example because of a fundamental insufficiency of the stock market for this type of purpose - which is that it's built on a mountain of leverage, which is the opposite of what you want for these purposes. If you wanted to use the value of a company to back something, you would want your ownership to include every hard asset they had.

If you want to "fix" this volatility of capital assets, then what did increase in value in the 2008 crash? If everything decreases in price uniformly, then that means the value of the cash is going up. That's not a merit of cash. Breakneck swings up are balanced over the long run by the same swings downward. I recognize that there might be a small problem with the fact that consumption is volatile, because it is, and that one observation is the basis for like all of Keynesian economics. Even a capital asset will get jerked around in valuation due to changes in demand for whatever it produces, but ideally it won't be shut down because the cost is front-loaded (not in operation). This ignores the larger point, however, that if our transaction medium (or "currency") was backed by a large sampling of capital assets, then the change in price of an asset valued in that currency will only change relative to the other assets.

4/18/2012 9:14:53 AM