Temporary Obligator Coupon: Fill & Download for Free

It’s a slightly humorous question because many libertarians talk about this all the time. And won’t shut up about it. And people think libertarians are crazy for it: where’s Ron Paul when you need him?As a quick recap from your social studies class: “scrip” is a substitute for legal tender, and is often a form of credit. That is, tradeable debt which someone else must pay.Usually when people are first exposed to the idea, it comes up in the context of old mining towns and companies, issuing pay in terms of “scrip” coupons. Miners work for coupons, which they can trade to the company for other goods.People learn that the idea of receiving scrip is bad. Typically, because a system of working for fake money traps people into systemic poverty. And that’s usually where the lesson stops.I'm going to gloss over centuries of banking and monetary history. It’s a bit of a disservice, because it’s absolutely fascinating. But I want to get to the point:The unit of currency known as a dollar pre-dates the existence of the U.S. government. They were gold and silver coins of known weight. Spanish dollars, minted 1776:(Fun fact: the word “dollar” is just an English translation of “thaler”—an older silver coin that had been minted in Europe since the 1500s.)After the Revolution, the Coinage Act of 1792 defined a dollar relative to silver. A dollar was to be 371.25 grains of silver, equivalent to about three-fourths of an ounce.This is a dollar (circa 1878). Also known as a Morgan silver dollar. There were other dollars of course. They made by the U.S. Mint and were issued by the U.S. Treasury.Now, if you recall anything about U.S. history, there was often this strange discussion about the U.S. dollar being based on silver. Or gold. Or both—bimetallism! And then, how they should be exchanged.It’s one of those things that shows up in an American public school history class, but you don’t have any context for why it was so important to be included in a history book.There he is.This is a piece of paper that represents a dollar (circa 1958). It was printed on the authority of the U.S. Treasury.This looks similar to something that you may have in your wallet today. But it’s not. Look very closely: there are clear differences. Like that notation at the top:“Silver Certificate”.And at the bottom:“One dollar in silver payable to the bearer on demand.”So that if you read this “greenback” piece of paper from top to bottom as if it were an ordinary document, it quite literally says:“This [bill] certifies that there is on deposit in the the Treasury of the United States of America One Dollar in silver payable to the bearer on demand.”You’ll also note that the U.S. Treasury seal is in blue ink. (Not that this is especially significant, but it’s just on obvious, observable difference.)For silver certificates (earlier than this one), you could go to a U.S. bank and exchange this piece of paper for a real dollar coin.Now, I’m going to skip of the political machinations and crazy talk to explain why politicians hated people having valuable coinage.In the 1930s, the Treasury used the Great Depression as an excuse to stop this silver and gold conversion. “Oh no. We’ll just hold on to it for you. We have it though. We swear.”In 1964, the U.S. Mint stopped minting coins with any silver in them for general circulation. For example, this is a U.S. quarter (25 cents) minted in 1932. It looks very similar to a quarter you probably lost in your couch cushion. But it’s not.It contains 90% silver. Today, this quarter is actually worth worth about $5. Just to put that in a sort of weird perspective, you could pay a worker $1 in pre-1964 quarters, and you’re still paying them $20 an hour at current prices.Huh… almost like un-sound money… hurts working class people… and makes politically connected classes wealthier…In 1971, President Nixon put a formal end to this silver “convertability”. Because the U.S. government had borrowed so much money that it couldn’t pay it back. So, it temporarily suspended all gold convertibility.But, as they do, temporary and emergency policies became permanent. In 1976, references of the dollar being equivalent to a certain amount of gold were quietly removed from federal statutes.From now on, the U.S. government would “float” the dollar. It’s not worth anything. Except what the government can convince people it’s worth.So just to make this point extremely clear: nearly everyone who is alive today? Gold-based currency stopped being used within your life, your parent’s lives, or (if you’re very young) your grandparent’s lives. In the history of the U.S., this is a relatively new thing.And so this, is probably what you have in your wallet today:It is not a dollar or dollar certificate. It is a dollar note. It is a credit obligation—similar to a check—issued by a private corporation named The Federal Reserve Bank.What is the Federal Reserve Bank obligated to pay on the notes it issues?Absolutely nothing.Then why is this piece of paper valuable at all? … Good question. A bit beyond the scope of this question though.Not even 50 years ago, all United States money was completely replaced with a new credit-based substitute.And—go back to the top—that is the very definition of scrip.(Except for the very novel point that U.S. money can still extinguish debts legally. That’s an interesting discussion.)So, many libertarians would argue the entire modern monetary system was slowly replaced by a system of scrip. One that benefits politicians, banks, and the wealthy. And just like those mining towns you learned about, it’s intended to keep workers and common citizens relatively (i.e. by comparison) poor and subservient to their financial betters.Note the source: none of this is secret.(Note when real GDP began separating from wages: when workers started being paid in dollar “scrip”.)The real modern problems of scrip is staring you in the face. It’s in your wallet. But the reality? Most people simply do not care. They just don't care if they use Monopoly money as long as they can buy groceries and pay their Netflix bill. And that is why the working classes in the U.S. will continue to get poorer.This is still America. And you are free to use whatever kind of money you choose (except when you aren’t). Use dollars, use Bitcoin, use gold. It really doesn't matter to libertarians what you want to transact in. Most people will continue to use the new U.S. dollar. It’s simple and easy.But sure: libertarians are strong and vocal critics of entire societies built on debt-based scrip systems. They often advocate “sound money”.While central bank currency is certainly usable in more places than company scrip, the fundamental problem is that scrip value is arbitrary and subject to power-struggle manipulations. As well that most workers are paid in this unit of currency that is constantly losing its value.

The infamous Snowball Clause was included as part of an atrocious over-the-counter swap agreement structured by Banco Santander and offered to the Portugese government (albeit indirectly through its state-owned rail network Metro do Porto (MdP) as a mechanism to “reduce MdP’s debt-service burden by offering some (TEMPORARY, and this is key) relief on MdP’s then required 4.79% semi-annual interest rate on a debt load of EUR 89mm.” For the first two years of the swap deal, Santander would trade 3% in semi-annual interest payments for what amounts to a de facto option to receive an atrocious, growing interest rate in the event that the benchmark interest rate (i.e. three-month Euribor) were to fall below 2% and or move above 6%. If 3mo Euribor were to fall below 2%, as it did in 2009 as global central banks implemented massive QE programs dropping rates to near-zero and even negative levels, MdP would be obligated to pay the base repayment rate of 1.79% plus 2 x (Euribor - 2%). It gets worse - this was only the penalty for the first quarter Euribor was below 2%. These interest penalties were set up in the rate agreement to literally compound MdP’s interest rate in every subsequent quarter.So, if Euribor was at 1.66% — which it hit in March 2009 — MdP had to add an extra 0.68% to its base repayment rate of 1.76%. That's because 0.68% is double 0.34%, the difference between the 2% cut off and the actual 1.66% rate.FOR EACH QUARTER THAT EURIBOR REMAINED BELOW 2%, EVERY QUARTER’s INCREMENTAL INTEREST RATE REQUIREMENT WOULD BE ADDED TO THE SUBSEQUENT QUARTER’s INTEREST REQUIREMENT (reprehensible!), NOT TO MENTION THE 2x PENALTY ADDITION TO THE BASE RATE.In June 2009, Euribor was down to 1.28%. That's an extra 1.44% added to the interest (double the 0.72% gulf, remember), taking the total interest to 2.12%.By the next quarter, Euribor stood at 0.77%. So the cumulative rate became: 2.12% + double 1.23% = 4.58%. Remember, MdP entered into the deal to negotiate down its 4.79% rate.With this shady coupon compounding scheme, MdP’s interest rate payable to Santander reached 40.6% in 2013 when MdP stopped paying the bank and entered litigation. By then, MdP’s original debts of EUR 89mm (in TOTAL) had ballooned to EUR 459mm, solely due to the interest being added to the original debt balance at these insane rates. Depending on your assumptions for Euribor through 2018 (in my view, it is safe to assume it will stay below 2%), this agreement, if allowed to remain in place, could cause MdP’s semi-annual rate to 100% in 2018.

A little background about what is commonly called “welfare”, before I succumb to the desire to answer your question with an (expletive deleted) no. The federal welfare program formerly known as “Aid to Families with Dependent Children” or AFDC was replaced in the late 1990’s (please don’t ask me to explain this, because I would not be able to refrain from using profanity) with the time limited program called Temporary Assistance to Needy Families or TANF.TANF, known as CalWORKS in California, is a time limited benefit with certain exceptions for low-income households with young minor children. The state of California is divided into two sets of counties, larrger coastal and urbanized counties and smaller population counties in largely rural areas. There is a differential in the amount of benefits paid to household’s living in those counties with higher costs of living. However having worked for 20 years as a legal aid attorney in one of those more rural suburban counties,, the disparity is based on the fiction that it is cheaper to not live in a city. Serious fiction because to live in most rural parts of California you need a generally reliable motor vehicle to do things like, say, get some groceries. Few rural communities have even modest public transportation services.The general CalWORKS rule will provide assistance benefits to an entire family (parent or parents and children) for a maximum of 48 to 60 months provided the parent and the household comply with an entire range of obligations including reporting requirements. Adult participants are required to participate in employment training or actual employment in order to receive assistance.To make an exceeding complicated issue real simple, the answer to your question is No. It is not more beneficial because there are offsets for employment earnings which are adjusted to move a family to economic self-sufficiency. The progress for most families is to have their grants reduced over time as there is more earnings based income.Your question suggestst that you may have been operating on the old myth of the Cadillac driving welfare queen”. Funny how no one ever questions how long some companies should keep tax credits and write offs while they underpay their line workers and shower their ineffective managers and the coupon cutting class with extravagant salaries and dividents.