View Full Version : get your WSF dollars here
rebel
04-06-2009, 04:02 PM
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2009-04-05-scrip_N.htm?csp=YahooModule_News
http://thesituationist.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/3stooges.jpg
I come from an old coal mining town. Nothing new there. When I was a kid you'd see coal company script all the time. You could even get change back in script and American. My dad didn't work at the mine and wasn't too keen about getting script. He was paid in script in the service and they would change script every so often to keep the black market down. He didn't have much use for it. I still have some of it in my safe deposit box.
16 tons...
..and whaddya get?....
oh, I thought it was... another day older and deeper in debt....
crashdive123
04-06-2009, 06:28 PM
oh, I thought it was... another day older and deeper in debt....
He just got impatient and jumped to the end of the stanza.
In theory, you can use anything for money. As long as everyone agrees on the value it's perfectly negotiable. Of course, if you make ones that look remarkably like Hamilton, Jackson, Grant or Franklin the U.S. Treasury gets a wee bit unhappy with you.
crashdive123
04-06-2009, 06:34 PM
I believe it is legal to make a paper currency (that does not resemble current US $$$) as long as it is for local use. I'm pretty sure coins are on the taboo list.
coins are on the taboo list
":thumbup1:" That's what she said!
Congress may regulate "private" or "community" currencies.
There may still be an arcane law on the books which imposes a 10% tax on such currencies. I'll research this sometime to see if the law has been amended or repealed.
There was a case directly on point decided by the United States Supreme Court in 1869. This case deals with a tax imposed on private currency but speaks directly to the issue of the currency itself in the dicta. VEAZIE BANK v. FENNO, 75 U.S. 533, (Wall.), (1869)
"Congress may restrain, by suitable enactments, the circulation as money of any notes not issued under its own authority. Without this power, indeed, its attempts to secure a sound and uniform currency for the country must be futile." http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=75&invol=533
There are now several "community curriencies" in circulation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_community_currencies_in_the_United_States
I thought we talked about this texting thing. Speak in English....please!
v. FENNO, 75 U.S. 533, 75 U.S. 533 (Wall.)
How am I suppose to decipher that? Good grief!
I thought we talked about this texting thing. Speak in English....please!
v. FENNO, 75 U.S. 533, 75 U.S. 533 (Wall.)
How am I suppose to decipher that? Good grief!
Bozo. That is English. Full language version. Lawyer Style. It's a case citation. But, I'm sure that you knew that already. :sneaky2:
Oooooh. Legalese. I mighta known.
He does have an ex-wife.
"Not tonight. I have a headache."
"There was a case directly on point decided by the United States Supreme Court in 1869. This case deals with..."
I hope you leave that at work.
I am at work. :innocent:
He does have an ex-wife.
"Not tonight. I have a headache."
"There was a case directly on point decided by the United States Supreme Court in 1869. This case deals with..."
Gimme' a while. I'm sure I CAN find a case on point. :smartass:
Gimme' a while. I'm sure I CAN find a case on point. :smartass:
"The English principle of coverture established that a married woman could not own property free from her husband's claim or control. In fact, women themselves were seen as property. English rape laws considered rape a crime against the husband, father or fianci of the victim. Rape cases were considered properly disposed of if the male "owner" of the victim was compensated for the damage to his "property". Marital rape was inconceivable, as wives could not legally refuse their husbands' conjugal rights.
In many parts of Europe a man could kill his wife without penalty well into the 1600's. By contrast, a wife who killed her husband was penalized as if she had committed treason, because her act of homicide was considered analogous to murdering the king.
English common law sanctioned wife beating under the infamous "rule of thumb," which decreed that a man might use a "rod not thicker than his thumb" with which to chastise his wife. Oddly enough, this restriction was meant to be a means of protecting wives from over zealous husbands. American states adopted this rule in the early nineteenth century in formal recognition of a husband's right to beat his wife. By 1910, only 35 out of 46 states had passed reform legislation classifying wife-beating as assault."
http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Dec/1/130513.html
Still looking for a case........
If I took a thumb sized rod to my wife I'd be met with a baseball bat. And, at the moment, she has a much better swing than me.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.5 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.