Comment: Come on...

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I am surprised Krugman didn't (see in situ)

Come on...

Usually your posts are somewhat intelligent and make me think a bit. This one is just moronic. You intellectually embarrassed yourself on this one.

"I am surprised Krugman didn't counter the currency competition position with examples of the dangers of private banks holding monopolies on currencies."
Absolute nonsense. Krugman advocates for private banks holding monopolies on our currency. Why would he try to prove himself wrong? That is a logical abyss. Unless you were trying to be funny, which from the rest of your post, is unlikely.

"It's called barter, and is perfectly legal."
Moronic. There's a reason currency was developed and it is all to prevent the problems with a bartering system. We need a medium of exchange. If you don't understand that, I would suggest an economics class. The problem is, as soon as more than a couple people start to "barter" with the same medium they get arrested and have that medium confiscated. This isn't my opinion, go look it up.

So, since we now understand that people need a medium of exchange, we're right back to the real topic at hand which is the merits and pitfalls of our current system and how it is managed. Which, by the way, you didn't comment on in your entire post.

Your third paragraph is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Semantics only matter when you're trying to seem smart on an internet message board, it is the practical application that matters. If you really think you're right on that one, go open up a store and don't accept dollar bills. Let me know how that goes for you.

Less typing... More thinking.

NOTE: I am not advocating violence in any way. The content of the post is for intellectual, theoretical, and philosophical discussion. FEDS, please don't come to my house.