Re: Seigniorage in Australia

From: anon (me_at_privacy.net)
Date: 08/21/04

  • Next message: Rick: "Re: Bush - Bad for Social Security" 
    Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 23:05:55 -0400

    "William F Hummel" <wfhummel@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:4i5di0lh4uujn3fpkjt1pltrqmvn5un3uh@4ax.com...
    > On 20 Aug 2004 21:56:06 GMT, aft627@aol.com (Andy F) wrote:
    >
    > >: "anon" me@privacy.net wrote:
    > >
    > >>"Lantern" <gchand4059@aol.com> wrote in message
    > >>news:20040820150149.05051.00002776@mb-m24.aol.com...
    > >>> me@privacy wrote:
    > >>>
    > >>> > The tax payer is the beneficiary.>
    > >>> >
    > >>> >at whose expense?>
    > >>>
    > >>> Don't tease us, me@privacy, what do you mean?
    > >>> U.S. seigniorage is pure profit, pure benefit to taxpayers...no
    expense
    > >>to
    > >>> anyone. What a deal! If it were not for seigniorage profit your taxes
    > >>would be
    > >>> more.
    > >>>
    > >>
    > >>free lunch?
    > >>
    > >It's at the 'expense' of anyone who holds cash.
    >
    > At the expense mainly of those who remain in cash economy and of the
    > foreign holders of US dollars. According to the Fed, the foreign
    > holders account for more than half of the total.
    >

    now we're talking.

  • Next message: Rick: "Re: Bush - Bad for Social Security"