2-name commercial paper ?

[edyle]

http://www.uhuh.com/worthy/mcfad.htm



Congressman McFadden

on the Federal Reserve Corporation

Remarks in Congress, 1934


The Federal Reserve: A Corrupt Institution

"Mr. Chairman, we have in this Country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks, hereinafter called the Fed. The Fed has cheated the Government of these United States and the people of the United States out of enough money to pay the Nation's debt. The depredations and iniquities of the Fed has cost enough money to pay the National debt several times over.

"This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of these United States, has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through the defects of the law under which it operates, through the maladministration of that law by the Fed and through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it.

"Some people who think that the Federal Reserve Banks United States Government institutions. They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lender. In that dark crew of financial pirates there are those who would cut a man's throat to get a dollar out of his pocket; there are those who send money into states to buy votes to control our legislatures; there are those who maintain International propaganda for thepurpose of deceiving us into granting of new concessions which will permit them to cover up their past misdeeds and set again in motion their gigantic train of crime.

"These twelve private credit monopolies were deceitfully and disloyally foisted upon this Country by the bankers who came here from Europe and repaid us our hospitality by undermining our American institutions. Those bankers took money out of this Country to finance Japan in a war against Russia. They created a reign of terror in Russia with our money in order to help that war along. They instigated the separate peace between Germany and Russia, and thus drove a wedge between the allies in World War. They financed Trotsky's passage from New York to Russia so that he might assist in the destruction of the Russian Empire. They fomented and instigated the Russian Revolution, and placed a large fund of American dollars at Trotsky's disposal in one of their branch banks in Sweden so that through him Russian homes might be thoroughly broken up and Russian children flung far and wide from their natural protectors. They have since begun breaking up of American homes and the dispersal of American children. "Mr. Chairman, there should be no partisanship in matters concerning banking and currency affairs in this Country, and I do not speak with any.

"In 1912 the National Monetary Association, under the chairmanship of the late Senator Nelson W. Aldrich, made a report and presented a vicious bill called the National Reserve Association bill. This bill is usually spoken of as the Aldrich bill. Senator Aldrich did not write the Aldrich bill. He was the tool, if not the accomplice, of the European bankers who for nearly twenty years had been scheming to set up a central bank in this Country and who in 1912 has spent and were continuing to spend vast sums of money to accomplish their purpose.

"We were opposed to the Aldrich plan for a central bank. The men who rule the Democratic Party then promised the people that if they were returned to power there would be no central bank established here while they held the reigns of government. Thirteen months later that promise was broken, and the Wilson administration, under the tutelage of those sinister Wall Street figures who stood behind Colonel House, established here in our free Country the worm-eaten monarchical institution of the "King's Bank" to control us from the top downward, and from the cradle to the grave.

"The Federal Reserve Bank destroyed our old and characteristic way of doing business. It discriminated against our 1-name commercial paper, the finest in the world, and it set up the antiquated 2-name paper, which is the present curse of this Country and which wrecked every country which has ever given it scope; it fastened down upon the Country the very tyranny from which the framers of the Constitution sought to save us.


I am trying to find out what Congressman Mcfadden was talking about with respect to 1-name commercial paper and 2-name commercial paper.

Does anybody have any idea.

[Redman]

http://chestofbooks.com/finance/banking/Money-And-Banking-Holdsworth/138-The-Credit-Department.html
Edyle the pages before the linked page and after have references to one ane two name commercial paper.

I'm still searching

Later

[Redman]

http://chestofbooks.com/finance/banking/Banking-Credits-And-Finance/Single-Name-Paper.html

hope this helps
later

[Redman]

http://chestofbooks.com/finance/banking/Banking-Credits-And-Finance/Single-Name-Paper.html

This is the best of the three links re the OP

Later,really

[edyle]

Thanks Reds.

Any thoughts on what it really means?

I wonder if the TT$ is 1name or 2name.
I wonder what change specifically it was that Congressman McFadden was talking about that changed the US currency from 1name to 2name.

[oecarb]

Edyle, as I understand it, single name commercial paper is a promisory note issued by the person who is responsible for repaying a loan. So, if you lend Redman $1000 and he signs a paper saying he will repay you your money in six months, that is single name commercial paper. If he gives you a paper signed by me saying I will repay the loan, that is two name commercial paper.

The Federal Reserve Banks are private banks that are now authorised to issue US dollars which are promisory notes from the US government promising to hand over the equivalent amount in gold.

[edyle]

Edyle, as I understand it, single name commercial paper is a promisory note issued by the person who is responsible for repaying a loan. So, if you lend Redman $1000 and he signs a paper saying he will repay you your money in six months, that is single name commercial paper. If he gives you a paper signed by me saying I will repay the loan, that is two name commercial paper.

The Federal Reserve Banks are private banks that are now authorised to issue US dollars which are promisory notes from the US government promising to hand over the equivalent amount in gold.


Ahh, lord; lets see we can get this straight:
1name paper:
Edyle lends Redman $1000. Right there I got a problem. Is the 1000$ 1name paper or 2name paper? Whats going on.
Anyway, Redman signs a paper - I'll call it an IOU of sorts.

2name paper:
Edyle lends Redman $1000.
Redman gives Edyle a paper signed by oecarb saying that oecarb will repay the loan.
btw are there 2 names on this paper?

Isn't that what you are saying? The $1000 it starts with begs the question; perhaps the example requires a commodity to start with?

Also the last part of what you said, about the government of the US handing over gold is not to my knowledge as of the 1970s when Nixon closed the gold window.

[oecarb]

Ahh, lord; lets see we can get this straight:
1name paper:
Edyle lends Redman $1000. Right there I got a problem. Is the 1000$ 1name paper or 2name paper? Whats going on.
Anyway, Redman signs a paper - I'll call it an IOU of sorts.

2name paper:
Edyle lends Redman $1000.
Redman gives Edyle a paper signed by oecarb saying that oecarb will repay the loan.
btw are there 2 names on this paper?

Isn't that what you are saying? The $1000 it starts with begs the question; perhaps the example requires a commodity to start with?

Also the last part of what you said, about the government of the US handing over gold is not to my knowledge as of the 1970s when Nixon closed the gold window.

Edyle, as long as the person taking out the loan is the same person who signed the IOU, is single name.

If he give you a IOU signed by somebody else, that is two name.

Don't matter what the loan is for. Could be that Redman have all he money tie up in investment and he have a emergency. Sell gold and lose out bigtime or take a loan from Edyle?

The Federal Reserve Banks were inaugurated in 1913 when one ounce of gold was worth $26.07.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Act

Now, check this out:

You lend Redman $1000. He give you a IOU (single name paper). You buy a second hand rotavator from me and give me Redman note (two name paper). I figure Redman note OK so I go to the grocery and buy some things and offer them Redman note (two name). They accept it. The grocery man decide to stock up and use Redman note to buy goods (two name).

Meanwhile Redman have your $1000 and nobody cashing in the note.

This go on for years with Redman just signing notes when he want something. One day he come to me and tell me if I give him $100,000, I could give out copies of his notes (two name). I say OK and I set up my photocopier.

After a few years, nobody cashing in the notes they just using it to buy things (fiat currency).

After a while Redman ask heself why he keeping gold in case people want to cash in. In any case it now have so many notes circulating that he can't pay out anyway.

That is the situation that Nixon find himself in.

That is how I see it.

Here endeth the lesson lol

[Redman]

And Like Nixon
I sir am not a crook.



But essentially that what I got from the info Edyle.

Whats the

Later

[oecarb]

And Like Nixon
I sir am not a crook.

Of course not. All that was legal. lol

[edyle]

Edyle, as long as the person taking out the loan is the same person who signed the IOU, is single name.

If he give you a IOU signed by somebody else, that is two name.

Don't matter what the loan is for. Could be that Redman have all he money tie up in investment and he have a emergency. Sell gold and lose out bigtime or take a loan from Edyle?

The Federal Reserve Banks were inaugurated in 1913 when one ounce of gold was worth $26.07.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Act

Now, check this out:

You lend Redman $1000. He give you a IOU (single name paper). You buy a second hand rotavator from me and give me Redman note (two name paper). I figure Redman note OK so I go to the grocery and buy some things and offer them Redman note (two name). They accept it. The grocery man decide to stock up and use Redman note to buy goods (two name).

Meanwhile Redman have your $1000 and nobody cashing in the note.

This go on for years with Redman just signing notes when he want something. One day he come to me and tell me if I give him $100,000, I could give out copies of his notes (two name). I say OK and I set up my photocopier.

After a few years, nobody cashing in the notes they just using it to buy things (fiat currency).

After a while Redman ask heself why he keeping gold in case people want to cash in. In any case it now have so many notes circulating that he can't pay out anyway.

That is the situation that Nixon find himself in.

That is how I see it.

Here endeth the lesson lol

No offence but that is alot of yippitiyap to me which still contains your $1000 conundrum. Forget the 1name and 2name papers involving REdman Edyle and OEC. Before you even start to talking about anybody lending anybody $1000, tell me whether this $1000 piece of paper is a 1name paper or 2name paper?

[miktay]

No offence but that is alot of yippitiyap to me which still contains your $1000 conundrum. Forget the 1name and 2name papers involving REdman Edyle and OEC. Before you even start to talking about anybody lending anybody $1000, tell me whether this $1000 piece of paper is a 1name paper or 2name paper?Edyle:At issue here iz who iz the 2nd name on the 2 name paper...The second name is the Federal Reserve...The fed 'holds' the gold...issues 2 name notes to the treasury...which is used as legal tender...To discourage the use of 1 name paper the Fed also mandates a higher discount rate on it's use...That is to say a merchant can get better terms from vendors using 2 name paper...This effectively kills 1 name paper...The problem iz he who controls the gold controls the money supply...And thiz controlling entity iz the fed...a private company...patterned after the Bank of England...Further to issue iz the gold held by the fed was once owned by US citizens...Mr. Roosevelt confiscated gold ostensibly to promote the use of 1 named paper...This gold had never been returned.Fast forward to the present time:*How much gold does the US gubmint have?No one iz quite sure..Ron Paul has asked...DSK was ostensibly setup 4 asking...

[edyle]

Edyle:At issue here iz who iz the 2nd name on the 2 name paper...The second name is the Federal Reserve...The fed 'holds' the gold...issues 2 name notes to the treasury...which is used as legal tender...To discourage the use of 1 name paper the Fed also mandates a higher discount rate on it's use...That is to say a merchant can get better terms from vendors using 2 name paper...This effectively kills 1 name paper...The problem iz he who controls the gold controls the money supply...And thiz controlling entity iz the fed...a private company...patterned after the Bank of England...Further to issue iz the gold held by the fed was once owned by US citizens...Mr. Roosevelt confiscated gold ostensibly to promote the use of 1 named paper...This gold had never been returned.Fast forward to the present time:*How much gold does the US gubmint have?No one iz quite sure..Ron Paul has asked...DSK was ostensibly setup 4 asking...

Again no offence, but,, yippityyap? At least you've started to address the issue.
What is the issue?
The issue is what is the difference between 1name and 2name paper?
You for example made 1 clear statement as follows:

Miktay said: "The second name is the Federal Reserve" THANK YOU MIKTAY!!!!!!!!!!
That does not answer the question but is starts to answer. Here is another question, it may be irrelevant but, how come you found it so easy to answer that the second name is the FED, but you do not mention who is the first? Did I miss something? Hey maybe nobody knows the answer, and that's fine, I'm just puzzled why the question seems so hard to understand.

[oecarb]

No offence but that is alot of yippitiyap to me which still contains your $1000 conundrum. Forget the 1name and 2name papers involving REdman Edyle and OEC. Before you even start to talking about anybody lending anybody $1000, tell me whether this $1000 piece of paper is a 1name paper or 2name paper?

Like I said. If the borrower's name is on the paper, it's one name (Redman responsible for paying). If somebody else's name is on it, it is two name (Redman and/or the other person might be responsible - but not necessarily).

[miktay]

Again no offence, but,, yippityyap? At least you've started to address the issue.What is the issue?The issue is what is the difference between 1name and 2name paper? You for example made 1 clear statement as follows:Miktay said: "The second name is the Federal Reserve" THANK YOU MIKTAY!!!!!!!!!!That does not answer the question but is starts to answer. Here is another question, it may be irrelevant but, how come you found it so easy to answer that the second name is the FED, but you do not mention who is the first? Did I miss something? Hey maybe nobody knows the answer, and that's fine, I'm just puzzled why the question seems so hard to understand. The 1st name iz the treasury (read gubmint)...The primary issue here is who controls the gold...controls the money supply...

[edyle]

Like I said. If the borrower's name is on the paper, it's one name (Redman responsible for paying). If somebody else's name is on it, it is two name (Redman and/or the other person might be responsible - but not necessarily).

2name paper:
The second name is the FED.
The FIRST name is...............................................

Is that so hard to answer? Is it so hard to say "I don't know what the first name is" is that the problem?

[edyle]

The 1st name iz the treasury (read gubmint)...The primary issue here is who controls the gold...controls the money supply...

Ah! There we go:
The FIRST name is the US Treasury
The SECOND name is the Federal Reserve.

THANK YOU.

http://bikyamasr.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/one-dollar1.jpg

Well the above picture does state on it what can be called 2 names:
1: Federal Reserve (Note)
2: United States of America.


Interestingly enough, looking at a $TT1 bill I notice that there is only 1 name:
- CENTRAL BANK OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO.

I wonder if the $TT is 1name currency?

[oecarb]

I wonder if the $TT is 1name currency?

I would say yes. The TT Central Bank is TT Govt owned (I believe) while the Federal Reserve is a private company which issues dollars on behalf of the US govt.

So, in the case of TT, the govt issues its own notes (its name is on the notes) while the Fed issues notes on behalf of the US govt.

[edyle]

I would say yes. The TT Central Bank is TT Govt owned (I believe) while the Federal Reserve is a private company which issues dollars on behalf of the US govt.

So, in the case of TT, the govt issues its own notes (its name is on the notes) while the Fed issues notes on behalf of the US govt.

Thank you.
At least now we seem to be talking the same language.

Now here's a question:
Is it relevant whether Trinidad and Tobago has 1name currency or 2name currency??

I assume it is because I have a speech from a former US Congressman essentially stating that the US had a 1name currency and it was being replaced by a 2name currency, which to paraphrase his words, is know to have wrecked havoc everywhere it was used before.

Meanwhile I have LaRouche always saying that the US should go back to it's constitutional system of Hamilton credit system.
(Incidentally and I know irrelevantly but interestingly enough, Hamilton was born here in the Caribbean in Nevis).

Hey by the way, isn't it curious that we among us can't quite seem to say conclusively whether or not the Central Bank of T&T is actually OWNED by the TT Government? The CBTT has a Governor! What's that!? The Treasury Department would be under the Government, but why then would there be some thing separate called the CBTT when we already have a Treasury?

[miktay]

Thank you.At least now we seem to be talking the same language.Now here's a question:Is it relevant whether Trinidad and Tobago has 1name currency or 2name currency??I assume it is because I have a speech from a former US Congressman essentially stating that the US had a 1name currency and it was being replaced by a 2name currency, which to paraphrase his words, is know to have wrecked havoc everywhere it was used before.Meanwhile I have LaRouche always saying that the US should go back to it's constitutional system of Hamilton credit system.(Incidentally and I know irrelevantly but interestingly enough, Hamilton was born here in the Caribbean in Nevis).Hey by the way, isn't it curious that we among us can't quite seem to say conclusively whether or not the Central Bank of T&T is actually OWNED by the TT Government? The CBTT has a Governor! What's that!? The Treasury Department would be under the Government, but why then would there be some thing separate called the CBTT when we already have a Treasury? Nowadays...1 name. & 2 name currencies are essentially the same...IOUs backed by promises...This wasnt the case in the early 1900s... Thiz is the reason for Sen McFadden's concerns...

[edyle]

Nowadays...1 name. & 2 name currencies are essentially the same...IOUs backed by promises...This wasnt the case in the early 1900s... Thiz is the reason for Sen McFadden's concerns...


Good point.
In that case in that time, the paper in question had a relationship to a real commodity - gold. Exactly what difference that would make with 1name and 2name paper I don't know yet, but it might be relevant today now that we are no longer connected to gold or such commodity.

[Redman]

I say that the USD,TT Euro and pretty much all currency is FIAT- it has value because the govt of the country says so.And is not redeemable for ANYTHING.
Its drawn on Full Faith and Credit-TRUST that it has value

So none of the currencies can be redeemed for x,y or Z.

1 name and 2 name paper are redeemable for a quantity of money/currency.

So the fact that it is redeemable for the currency dosent this then separate it from the currency??
makes it a 'derivative' of the currency??

So in my simple opinion currency is not 1 name paper. or 2 name paper.-You cant redeem a fiat currency for anything-you can redeem the 1 or 2 name paper.

Later

[miktay]

Good point. In that case in that time, the paper in question had a relationship to a real commodity - gold. Exactly what difference that would make with 1name and 2name paper I don't know yet, but it might be relevant today now that we are no longer connected to gold or such commodity..In the early 1900s the Federal Reserve...a private institution...gained control of the gold 'owned' by the US gubmint...Whomever controls the gold controls the money supply..And many other things besides...Meyer Rothschild... the chief proponent of central banking...said:Let me control the money of a nation and I care not who makes its' laws

[edyle]

I say that the USD,TT Euro and pretty much all currency is FIAT- it has value because the govt of the country says so.And is not redeemable for ANYTHING.
Its drawn on Full Faith and Credit-TRUST that it has value

So none of the currencies can be redeemed for x,y or Z.

1 name and 2 name paper are redeemable for a quantity of money/currency.

So the fact that it is redeemable for the currency dosent this then separate it from the currency??
makes it a 'derivative' of the currency??

So in my simple opinion currency is not 1 name paper. or 2 name paper.-You cant redeem a fiat currency for anything-you can redeem the 1 or 2 name paper.

Later

Ah, so then you would say that when Congressman McFadden was talking about 1name and 2name paper back then in the 1930's he was not referring to the US dollar currency but instead to something else?



Digressing somewhat on a related matter: especially for the benefit of interested observers:
US Silver Certificate:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/47/Silvercertificate.jpg/683px-Silvercertificate.jpg

Note the words.

SILVER CERTIFICATE
This CERTIFIES that there IS on DEPOSIT in the TREASURY of
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FIVE DOLLARS
IN SILVER payable to the bearer on DEMAND

Also note the year: 1934

[oecarb]

Ah, so then you would say that when Congressman McFadden was talking about 1name and 2name paper back then in the 1930's he was not referring to the US dollar currency but instead to something else?

Note the words.

SILVER CERTIFICATE
This CERTIFIES that there IS on DEPOSIT in the TREASURY of
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FIVE DOLLARS
IN SILVER payable to the bearer on DEMAND

Also note the year: 1934

Ahem.........You didn't read this bit:


The Plan called for the establishment of a National Reserve Association with 15 regional district branches and 46 geographically dispersed directors primarily from the banking profession. The Reserve Association would make emergency loans to member banks, print money, and act as the fiscal agent for the U.S. government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Act

This means that the US govt would be responsible for paying the silver but the Fed would be issuing the notes ie two name.

[edyle]

Ahem.........You didn't read this bit:



This means that the US govt would be responsible for paying the silver but the Fed would be issuing the notes ie two name.

Uhuh.
So
oecarb is saying that the US dollar is 2name currency, right?
Reading over what you said, I can't quite quote you on that, because you said something was 2name, but you did not actually say that the US DOLLAR was 2name, only that the 'note' issued by the Fed is 2name. I assume the note issued by the Fed would be for example a US dollar.

Which, if I am reading Redman correctly is different from what Redman is saying;
Redman, correct me if I'm wrong,
Redman is saying the US dollar is neither 1name paper nor 2name paper;
I'll quote Redman here: "1 name and 2 name paper are redeemable for a quantity of money/currency."
and that the 1name or 2name paper is something else (like a derivative) which can be 'redeemed' for the fiat currency.

[oecarb]

Uhuh.
So
oecarb is saying that the US dollar is 2name currency, right?
Reading over what you said, I can't quite quote you on that, because you said something was 2name, but you did not actually say that the US DOLLAR was 2name, only that the 'note' issued by the Fed is 2name. I assume the note issued by the Fed would be for example a US dollar.

Which, if I am reading Redman correctly is different from what Redman is saying;
Redman, correct me if I'm wrong,
Redman is saying the US dollar is neither 1name paper nor 2name paper;
I'll quote Redman here: "1 name and 2 name paper are redeemable for a quantity of money/currency."
and that the 1name or 2name paper is something else (like a derivative) which can be 'redeemed' for the fiat currency.

Edyle, I will repeat.

If the person who is responsible for paying is the same as that on the note (IOU), that is one name.

In McFadden's day, the US govt was responsible for payment (as your silver certificate) but the Fed issued the notes (IOUs). That is two name.

Today the US dollar doesn't promise to pay you anything. All you getting is dollars so that is not even an IOU.

[Redman]

Today the US dollar doesn't promise to pay you anything. All you getting is dollars so that is not even an IOU.

As are all fiat currencies.
The Euro is a situation of I dont know WHO owes you given the varying sources of capitalization.

Guys - I was putting forth an OPINION re the 1 name 2 name paper vs currency.

A check is redeemable, for currency-but is not currency. So it follows that anything that is redeemable for currency is NOT currency-but something resembling currency, a substitute, and a substitute(like non alcoholic beer) is NEVER the real thing.
and vice versa

So edyle I might be wrong.

Later

[edyle]

Edyle, I will repeat.

If the person who is responsible for paying is the same as that on the note (IOU), that is one name.

In McFadden's day, the US govt was responsible for payment (as your silver certificate) but the Fed issued the notes (IOUs). That is two name.
Today the US dollar doesn't promise to pay you anything. All you getting is dollars so that is not even an IOU.

So oecarb is saying that the US$ today is neither 1name nor 2name paper, RIGHT? Which is consistent what Redman said?

[edyle]

As are all fiat currencies.
The Euro is a situation of I dont know WHO owes you given the varying sources of capitalization.

Guys - I was putting forth an OPINION re the 1 name 2 name paper vs currency.

A check is redeemable, for currency-but is not currency. So it follows that anything that is redeemable for currency is NOT currency-but something resembling currency, a substitute, and a substitute(like non alcoholic beer) is NEVER the real thing.
and vice versa

So edyle I might be wrong.

Later

Yes, thanks Redman; right now all I'm trying to get a perspective on is whether or not the US$, and more importantly the TT$ is 1name paper, 2name paper or, as it is starting to sound - neither. For a moment I thought oec was saying that the US$ was 2name, but a more carefull look made it clear that he didn't actually go that far, and yet getting him to state clearly that it is neither is like PULLING TEETH!!!!!

[miktay]

How does it matter whether US$ or TT$ iz 1 name or 2 name?

[edyle]

How does it matter whether US$ or TT$ iz 1 name or 2 name?

I have no idea yet, but if they are NEITHER then the question is even less than moot! So if it's NEITHER, then I'd like to know. In Redman's opinion it is NEITHER. In oecarb's opinion, I'm not sure yet, but it sounds like NEITHER also.
As for me I have a degree in Physics and I don't claim any expertise in Finance matters so I'm asking the question.

[miktay]

I have no idea yet, but if they are NEITHER then the question is even less than moot! So if it's NEITHER, then I'd like to know. In Redman's opinion it is NEITHER. In oecarb's opinion, I'm not sure yet, but it sounds like NEITHER also. As for me I have a degree in Physics and I don't claim any expertise in Finance matters so I'm asking the question. Fair enuf...4 what it iz worth...my opinion iz both the US$ and TT$ are 2 name paper...

[edyle]

Fair enuf...4 what it iz worth...my opinion iz both the US$ and TT$ are 2 name paper...

In that case, what would be the 2 names in the case of the TT$? I find it interesting that the TT$ bill has only 1 name printed on it, which is the Central Bank of Trinidad and Tobago.

[oecarb]

The thing is the nature of money has changed since 1913. Back then, who would have thought that ordinary people could sit in their homes and transter thousands of dollars across oceans and continents by pressing a few buttons?

[miktay]

In that case, what would be the 2 names in the case of the TT$? I find it interesting that the TT$ bill has only 1 name printed on it, which is the Central Bank of Trinidad and Tobago.Who iz the ultimate guarantor of the currency?The 'buck' stops there...

[edyle]

Who iz the ultimate guarantor of the currency?The 'buck' stops there...

Since there is only 1 name on the paper, what basis is there for saying that the TT$ might be 2name paper? Since the ONLY name on the paper is the Central Bank of Trinidad and Tobago, simple common sense says to me that the buck stops with the Central Bank of Trinidad and Tobago.

[miktay]

Since there is only 1 name on the paper, what basis is there for saying that the TT$ might be 2name paper? Since the ONLY name on the paper is the Central Bank of Trinidad and Tobago, simple common sense says to me that the buck stops with the Central Bank of Trinidad and Tobago.There are 2 names on the TT$ Central Bank and Trinidad and Tobago

[edyle]

There are 2 names on the TT$ Central Bank and Trinidad and Tobago

I'm not sure if you meant that half jokingly, but it does raise two other matters;
but first:
I quote from the bills in my wallet:
"CENTRAL BANK OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO"

Now, to the two issues raised by your possibly half joking remark:
1: Would the Central Bank be a separate entity from (The Government of) Trinidad and Tobago ? Well I suppose as compared to (The Government of) Trinidad and Tobago, one might just as easily speculate: (The Repuplic of) Trinidad and Tobago.
2: The obvious or implied connotation of CENTRAL BANK OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO, is that the Central Bank is a subset of Trinidad and Tobago.

The official name for the central bank certainly appear to be: CENTRAL BANK OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO, abbreviated CBTT. That is for example what you will see on their website.
http://www.central-bank.org.tt/

[oecarb]

Since there is only 1 name on the paper, what basis is there for saying that the TT$ might be 2name paper? Since the ONLY name on the paper is the Central Bank of Trinidad and Tobago, simple common sense says to me that the buck stops with the Central Bank of Trinidad and Tobago.

Edyle, you still not understanding. It's not how many names but whether the name is that of the original guarantor or not. Where does the buck stop and is that the name on the paper.

If I sigm a paper agreeing to pay you for some goods, I am clearly responsible for paying. One name.

If I give you a paper signed by Miktay, who is responsible for paying? Me or Miktay? Two name.

[edyle]

Edyle, you still not understanding. It's not how many names but whether the name is that of the original guarantor or not. Where does the buck stop and is that the name on the paper.

If I sigm a paper agreeing to pay you for some goods, I am clearly responsible for paying. One name.

If I give you a paper signed by Miktay, who is responsible for paying? Me or Miktay? Two name.

You're responding to my response to miktay's indication that the TT$ is 2name paper?

How about you answer, the question that I asked you which you have not answered: In case you have forgotten, the question is:
IS THE TT$ 1name paper, 2name paper, or NEITHER.

[miktay]

Edyle: My response is based on the premise that the CBTT and the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago are separate entities..Separate but not independentCBTT issues currency on behalf of the GOTt..(2) The Bank is hereby created a body corporatehttp://rgd.legalaffairs.gov.tt/Laws2/Alphabetical_List/lawspdfs/79.02.pdf[/q]Banker to the GovernmentIn its role as banker to the Government, the Bank maintains deposit accounts, effects domestic and foreign currency transactions and provides advice relative to these matters.http://www.central-bank.org.tt/node/120

[edyle]

Edyle: My response is based on the premise that the CBTT and the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago are separate entities..Separate but not independentCBTT issues currency on behalf of the GOTt..(2) The Bank is hereby created a body corporatehttp://rgd.legalaffairs.gov.tt/Laws2/Alphabetical_List/lawspdfs/79.02.pdf[/q]Banker to the GovernmentIn its role as banker to the Government, the Bank maintains deposit accounts, effects domestic and foreign currency transactions and provides advice relative to these matters.http://www.central-bank.org.tt/node/120

"2. In this Act—
“the Bank” means the Central Bank of Trinidad and Tobago;"

I won't contest that you can make a sematic arguement to claim that
CENTRAL BANK OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
names or can be construed to name 2 different names.

Rather dubious and quite a stretch in my opinion.

And I see no point debating it.

You answered the question. You opine that the TT$ is 2name currency.

[oecarb]

How about you answer, the question that I asked you which you have not answered: In case you have forgotten, the question is:
IS THE TT$ 1name paper, 2name paper, or NEITHER.

Edyle, in my opinion, it is not easy to answer this question. The concept of one name/two name paper was based on paper being redeemed bu gold or silver. You could cash in your notes and collect precious metals. And you would need to know who would be responsible for handing you this gold or silver. It was therefore important to know whether bank notes were single name or two name in case of default or difficulty when you tried to collect. Single name would mean you had to deal with one person or body. Two name meant that there was an intermediary.

In my opinion, this no longer applies to bank notes. You cannot go and collect your gold or silver. You are stuck with it.
However, if you want to stretch a point you have to ask whether CBTT can act independently to print bank notes without having specific instructions from the govt. In my opinion, it boils down to whether the Governor of CBTT is a civil servant or an independent banker (like the Fed).

If he is a civil servant, the govt will instruct him on how many banknotes and which denominations to print. Hence the govt is in control and there is no doubt who is ultimately responsible as the governor's signature would be on the note on behalf of the govt. That IMO would make it one name.

If he is an independent banker and can issue banknotes when he feels like it (as the Fed does) then there is doubt about whether CBTT or the govt is ultimately responsible.

Going back to my previous scenario, if I give you a note signed by me on my account and Miktay is my accountant, it is the same as if I gave you a note signed by him and drawn on that account. If you want to sue you sue me.

If I gave you a note signed by Miktay and drawn on his private account, you could have problems. I owe you but Miktay is paying. If he goes bankrupt, who is responsible? You accepted his cheque in payment. I might have given you his cheque because he was going to pay me for something and I asked him to make it out to you. Who do you sue?

[Redman]

Miktay ehpaying nobody nuttin.
I believe the terms do not apply to currency.

Currency is a means to transfer purchasing power,while paper or notes,bills and bonds are a mechanism to lend money.while similar it's not the same.
Therefore paper is designed to be redeemable at some point.
Currency is not.If it was people would not be forced to rely on the full faith and credit of the central bank.

later

[miktay]

Commercial paper=currency

[Redman]

Commercial paper=currency How so breds ?later

[oecarb]

Miktay ehpaying nobody nuttin.

I believe the terms do not apply to currency.

Therefore paper is designed to be redeemable at some point. Currency is not.If it was people would not be forced to rely on the full faith and credit of the central bank.

later

I totally agree.

Like I said:

The concept of one name/two name paper was based on paper being redeemed by gold or silver.
You could cash in your notes and collect precious metals. And you would need to know who would be responsible for handing you this gold or silver.

Today, this no longer applies to "currency". The most you could hope for is that the govt/issuer acts responsibly so that faith is upheld in the currency.

I can see it being relevant in dealing with derivatives, however. These are redeemable in currency, I believe. lol

[miktay]

How so breds ?later

Rep McFadden iz railing against a Fed system that creates unsound currency...


In 1913, before the Senate Banking and Currency Committee, Mr. Alexander Lassen made the following statement: "The whole scheme of the Fed with its commercial paper is an impractical, cumbersome machinery- is simply a cover to secure the privilege of issuing money,and to evade payment of as much tax upon circulation as possible and then control the issue and maintain, instead of reducing interest rates. It will prove to the advantage of the few and the detriment of the people.

http://maxexchange.com/ybj/mcfadden_speaks_out_2.htm

[edyle]

Edyle, in my opinion, it is not easy to answer this question. The concept of one name/two name paper was based on paper being redeemed bu gold or silver. You could cash in your notes and collect precious metals. And you would need to know who would be responsible for handing you this gold or silver. It was therefore important to know whether bank notes were single name or two name in case of default or difficulty when you tried to collect. Single name would mean you had to deal with one person or body. Two name meant that there was an intermediary.

In my opinion, this no longer applies to bank notes. You cannot go and collect your gold or silver. You are stuck with it.
However, if you want to stretch a point you have to ask whether CBTT can act independently to print bank notes without having specific instructions from the govt. In my opinion, it boils down to whether the Governor of CBTT is a civil servant or an independent banker (like the Fed).

If he is a civil servant, the govt will instruct him on how many banknotes and which denominations to print. Hence the govt is in control and there is no doubt who is ultimately responsible as the governor's signature would be on the note on behalf of the govt. That IMO would make it one name.

If he is an independent banker and can issue banknotes when he feels like it (as the Fed does) then there is doubt about whether CBTT or the govt is ultimately responsible.

Going back to my previous scenario, if I give you a note signed by me on my account and Miktay is my accountant, it is the same as if I gave you a note signed by him and drawn on that account. If you want to sue you sue me.

If I gave you a note signed by Miktay and drawn on his private account, you could have problems. I owe you but Miktay is paying. If he goes bankrupt, who is responsible? You accepted his cheque in payment. I might have given you his cheque because he was going to pay me for something and I asked him to make it out to you. Who do you sue?

blah blah blah yippity yap but finallly you answered the question in the midddle of the blah blah blah; THANK YOU:
oecarb said: "In my opinion, this no longer applies to bank notes."
Thanks.

Good. That lines up with what Redman said too.

[oecarb]

blah blah blah yippity yap but finallly you answered the question in the midddle of the blah blah blah; THANK YOU:
oecarb said: "In my opinion, this no longer applies to bank notes."
Thanks.

Good. That lines up with what Redman said too.

Edyle, what I had been saying from the beginning is that the system was designed for a past age. It's like if George Washington rose from his grave and asked you how many horses need to pull your carriage to take your family to church on a Sunday morning.