Talk Elections

Sponsor: Deus

I don't understand this bill????
Deus, could you explain?

I'd rather not cede (more) control of our currency to bankers, thanks.

If the current Atlasian Constituition is anything like the US in terms of legislative powers, the coining and issuance of currency is a responsibility of the legislative branch of government. Not some private bank.

All I can say to this Bill is "wha?"

Good to know the Senate's time is being put to good use.

Motion to table.

Your hostility is starting to bug me. Why are you always so arrogant and generally unpleasant?

First of all, just because the government has the Constitutional authority to do something doesn't mean it is required to. The US government, for example, did not issue its own notes until the Civil War. The men who wrote the US Constitution were perfectly happy to leave the provision of money to private issuers.

In any case, this bill wouldn't stop the Federal government from issuing currency. It would simply allow private citizens and businesses to choose alternatives if they so desired.

My apologies.

I will withdraw my motion and ask the Senator what benefit this Bill would have and why this Senate should support this measure.

I find this law to be unnecessary- it's already perfectly legal to use alternative currencies for the purchase of goods and services, and vendors can legally refuse payment in USD before the final point of sale (i.e. before a debt is owed). Even when multiple currencies exist it's necessary to have a legal tender for private debt in order to prevent ambiguity (i.e., when you're done eating at a restaurant and you owe them a debt - in the form of a check - legal tender laws prevent the owner from forcing you to pay in bitcoins)

Maybe that's the (pinko) European in me speaking, but I do feel that it is certainly preferable to have a central authority controlling our currency, and in that way our monetary policy. Such an important point as money is for me better left to the government...

Ok. I see no problem with that.

I look forward to the brave new world of paddy's any random businesses dollars.

It's ok, I had a stressful day yesterday so I was exaggerating.

I'll post an advocacy later tonight.

This bill is fairly simple. It would allow individuals and institutions to negotiate contracts requiring payment in currencies/commodities other than Federal Reserve Notes. It wouldn't alter Atlasian monetary policy or prevent those who wish to use from FRN's from ceasing to do so, it would simply allow consenting parties to use alternatives if they so desire. There are many reasons why people may wish to use alternative currencies or other forms of payments (I can go into detail if anyone would like), and I see little reason why they should be prohibited from doing so.

I would like some detail as to why someone wouldn't use legal tender?

I doubt that would ever happen, since a) most menus mark their prices with $ signs (and those that don't would surely do so if other currencies came into common use), and b) the restaurant would gain nothing from deceiving people in such a manner, since if they actually went through the trouble to trick all of their customers and sue them if they refused to pay (which would never happen anyway) no court would find them to be in the right.

This bill wouldn't abolish the Federal Reserve or prevent it from issuing currency.

Would this enable private individuals to print their own currency... assuming that others would be prepared to accept it?

For better or worse, the Atlasian monetary system is inherently inflationary (a dollar 10 years ago was worth more that it is today, and a dollar today is worth more than it will be in 10 years, etc) so for contracts that span a number of years, the interested parties may wish to use a form of payment that is more likely to retain its value over the time period of the contract. Others may wish to negotiate forms of payment more convenient for them (ex: a farmer who takes out a loan may wish to repay it in a certain crop rather than dollars, since he was more control over how of a given crop he will grow than he does over what price his crops will fetch on the market in the future). Others may simply dislike government-issued currency for ideological reasons.

Whatever the case, I'm sure that most people will continue to use FRN's if this bill passes. I simply see no reason those who might not wish to from doing so.

That's already legal.

That is true.

I'm pretty sure bartering is not illegal. I'm just not sure what problem is being solved by this Bill, when a lot of it is accepted and not illegal.

So will this bill also allow companies to pay their employees in monopoly money?

Oh I do know that, but wouldn't it (correct me if I'm wrong) take away the "monopoly" for the Fed to control this issuing of currency. And I believe that the state should have the monopoly on that, otherwise people could just go out and print as much money as they want - the economy just wouldn't survive that. As said, probably this is my European point of view, but there needs to be someone who controls all this, at least in my opinion.

Yes, if that was specified in the employment contract. What worker would agree to that though?

If someone just started their won currency that they massively inflated, I doubt anybody would use it.

Let's say a worker wishes to be paid in Bitcoin. The employer doesn't really care so he agrees to a contract specifying such. When payday comes along, the employer reneges on the contract and pays the worker in ASD (I assume this is the abbreviation for Atlasian dollars). Under the current system, the worker would have to agree to that since, under legal tender laws, ASD must be accepted for the payment for all financial obligations (in this case, the obligation of the employer to the employee). The contract requiring payment in BTC would be unenforceable in court due to legal tender laws. The same applies for the other examples I gave previously.

What worker has the ability to tell his employer what she wants to be paid, and in this instance, what she wants to be paid in? Do you have any understanding of the 19th Century? Because employers did, and if this bill passes, will begin to pay the lowest of the low paid in company scrip as a means of asserting total control over every aspect of their lives. I'd rather not give them the opportunity.

Of course not willingly, but what happens if it were a person of sizeable influence? And what if they stated to inflate Dollars?

No worker would work for monopoly money because they would gain nothing from doing so. That's like saying we should ban volunteer work because employers would start paying employees nothing. That would never happen because no worker who wants money would work for nothing.

Company scrip is a different issue. But, that's already legal (I think? If it's illegal I don't see how this bill would change that). Legal tender laws don't require that only ASD be used to pay employees, they just require that workers accept ASD if their employer wants to pay them with that. Under the current system, an employer and an employee could negotiate a contract specifying payment in non-ASD, but only the employer would have the ability to renege on the agreement. The employee wouldn't be able to demand payment in ASD, since the legal tender statute states that ASD must be accepted "for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues", not that they must be used as payment for such. At least that's my understanding.

I generally believe in a free market, but the instability created by a chaotic currency market has had a generally negative effect on the free flow of commerce. Rather then applying a broad standard down to the narrowest of economic sub-policies, it is better in my view to focus on the big picture and then ascertain what approach is best on a sub-policy and if that requires gov't regulation (and thereby said regulation facilitates the overall free market) I think such is the better route to take.


Now that said, nothing of course absolves any central bank of incompetence and poor policy and there should be changes made to the way they operate of course.

Example(s)? I see no reason to believe this would lead to chaos.

Alright. I have no idea how that applies to this bill though.

I don't believe there is enough will in the Senate to further this, considering nothing has happened for three days. The Sponsor has presented his case, I believe I have asked my questions, and here has been sufficient time for others. I appreciate Senator Deus' prompt responses.

I am going to motion for a final vote on this.

Second motion for final vote

I third the motion

Senators a final vote is now open on this bill, please vote aye nay or abstain

Nay

Nay

NAY

Nay

Nay

This has enough votes to fail, senators have 24 hours to change their votes

Yay

By a vote of 7-1 this bill has failed the senate

Aye: JCL

Nay: Bore, Yankee, Polnut, Bacon King, TNF, Windjammer, Cranberry

Not voting: Deus