Posts by Frank Walker7

Professor Marshall in The New York Times;

"Property taxes serve a primary developmental purpose by discouraging—or rather, making more expensive—the traditional habit our citizens have of hoarding wealth in "bricks and mortar," rather than investing in banks, bonds, stocks, gold, education, and other avenues."

And there you have it, tossing banks, government bonds, stocks, and gold all into the same bucket.

So, at this point, I can't tell if this guy is just talking nonsense or if he's actually giving us some solid advice on how to diversify a portfolio. 😁

Walter Barrett8 said:There are countless ways to define money. Every single school of economic thought seems to have its own specific take on what it actually is.
Look, there’s a fundamental consensus among all the major schools of thought on what money actually needs to be: it has to be easily divisible, non-perishable, universally accepted, and—most importantly—it has to serve as a store of value. It’s that last requirement that really exposes the flaw in the system. Because they fail to act as a true store of value, fiat currencies simply aren't real money. 😉

It’s clear that 99.9% of people haven't even begun to consider gold as a serious investment vehicle. Because of that, you can't exactly blame a mass sell-off by the public for any price drops we see. If the numbers are sliding, it isn't because people are jumping ship; it’s more likely the work of some Terminator algorithms or those relentless Bot-ov programs running the show behind the scenes. 😁

Shadow Asks:
It’s entirely possible that tomorrow, the majority of Americans just stop recognizing the USD as the primary medium of exchange. Imagine a scenario where people simply lose faith in the local currency as a functional tool for trade, and instead, they start settling all goods and services in gold, Bitcoin, or some other stable alternative. It wouldn't take much—just a collective shift in perception to turn the current system upside down.

It’s just not happening. Since the USD is the official legal tender, any transaction involving goods or services that isn't happening under the table or in some gray market shadow economy has to be priced in dollars. That creates an automatic, built-in demand which keeps the currency afloat. It’s actually illegal to offer or accept Euros at a local shop here, because all the receipts have to be issued in USD, and the tax man expects his cut in dollars too.

The supply is climbing...

Real estate is a bit of a trap if you look at it closely. You can get hit with property taxes whenever the government feels like squeezing you, the structure itself can crumble, or some legal technicality could see it confiscated entirely. Then there’s the constant drain of utilities and maintenance, not to mention depreciation eating away at your equity. If you aren't actually using the space, all that "growth" in market value is just paper profit—it gets swallowed whole by the overhead. At the end of the day, if there's no utility, you're just paying to own a liability.
Rental income is fine, I guess, but let's be honest—it just accelerates the depreciation.

The response to this is provided below.

Shadow As stated by:
As far as I'm concerned, this is just more of that run-of-the-mill demagoguery we’re forced to swallow from the mainstream media every single day. They love to spin the narrative: they claim the standard of living for the average American has never been higher, and meanwhile, hundreds of millions of people are being lifted out of poverty. Somehow, they expect us to believe that this isn't a net benefit for the individual, but rather some kind of collective loss for everyone else. It's just more noise.

The West has been sliding into decline for quite some time now—actually, lately, it’s just gone downhill fast. We’re seeing record numbers of people struggling with hunger and poverty, hitting percentages we haven't seen in generations. If there’s one silver lining to this whole mess, it’s that the system is still churning out technological breakthroughs at an insane pace. I suppose you could call it the accidental, positive collateral damage of pure, unadulterated greed.

It’s happening. Those once-steady linear slopes are starting to curve upward into pure exponential madness. We're looking at a perfect storm: skyrocketing national debt, exploding private debt, massive budget deficits, trade imbalances, and that relentless, grinding inflationary pressure. It's all converging at once. Back in the day, gold acted as a stabilizer for the balance of payments, keeping everything in a state of maximum equilibrium. That stability was the bedrock for domestic manufacturing, maintaining a predictable exchange rate, and ensuring debt sustainability actually meant something. Now? The math just isn't adding up anymore.

But gold? You can't really tax it or have it confiscated easily... and even if they tried, it wouldn't be the first time.
Besides, do you honestly think people would push back? Fine, let's say we hold a national referendum: choose between a luxury housing tax or a tax on gold bullion. Man, the result would look just like an election in Iran... 99.99% in favor of taxing the gold.

Regarding that last bolded part, are you referring to real estate or gold?😁

Hey Anthony Evans78, I totally get where you're coming from—gold is a finite resource, whereas they can just print more paper money and slap a million-dollar price tag on it, and suddenly it's worth a million dollars.

I've been keeping a close eye on everything happening within the Eurozone lately, and it seems like gold is mostly just idling, though I'm sure there are a hundred hidden reasons behind that stagnation.
I’m having a hard time figuring out which specific scenario involving this Euro crisis might actually trigger a rally for gold; maybe I'm just looking at this too narrowly, but...

If I recall correctly, the last massive surge happened back in August 2011 during that whole mess with the US credit rating downgrade.(I remember being as happy as a kid back then; I had just gotten back from a trip to Chicago and picked up 50 grams, only to hop online and see the world was basically falling apart, thinking to myself that prices were about to skyrocket).

So, it feels to me—though I could be wrong—that we're basically just sitting around waiting for some bad news to break out of the States before we see those prices climb again.

Walter Barrett8 said:If you're looking at it through the lens of the dollar—sure, it’s the same. But don't expect to walk into a jewelry shop in Europe and pay with a stack of greenbacks.
The sticker prices you see in those shops are inevitably
adjusted for the EUR/USD exchange rate, meaning everything is priced in Euros...

I'm still feeling a little lost here....

I mean, what difference do prices in America, China, or even on Mars make to me if the gold I'm buying is priced according to European standards?

So, is the logic really that things are worse for Europe simply because the exchange rate makes the local price of gold look higher?

Anybody.....

Walter Barrett8 said:First, let’s settle the Euro issue—the USDUSD exchange rate is merely the coefficient used to
convert the global, Dollar-denominated price of gold into a European price when you're buying it
in Europe, much like how everything would be multiplied by the USDUSD rate if you were buying in the US. 😉
The Dollar's advantage lies in its status as the world's reserve currency, which is why the global price of gold is denominated in Dollars. Think of the gold price as a gauge for the rot within the Dollar; the price is manipulated specifically to keep the Dollar on life support, because the securities market allows for that kind of maneuvering.
If they weren't manipulating it, the gold price in Dollars would be climbing, and since the Euro is weakening,
the price in Euros would be climbing even faster.
Last year, we saw the opposite: the Dollar price went up, but the Euro was also strengthening, so the percentage increase of gold in Euros was actually less than the increase in Dollars.

Wait, what?
Aren't gold prices actually the same all over the world when you look at them in dollars?

So, I was thinking about something; I actually asked a similar question a few months back but didn't quite get the clarity I was looking for, so maybe I just phrased it poorly the first time.

How much does all this recent news regarding the Eurozone actually impact gold prices? For instance, if we follow the logic that a weaker Euro means a stronger Dollar, then it feels like gold might not see much upward movement regardless of how things play out in Europe. If some Eurozone member faces a crisis and goes bust, the Dollar likely climbs—right?—and if things eventually stabilize and we dodge a recession, gold might dip again. Am I missing something there?

It seems like the real core of the issue is really just the strength of the Dollar itself, along with the Fed's quantitative easing and all that jazz.

That brings me to the part that’s been really tripping me up lately: since gold is priced in Dollars, if Europe hits a wall and the Dollar surges because of it, gold price stays flat even though everything else is falling apart.🤷

I know I've probably rambled on a bit here, but that's the specific loop I'm stuck in... so if anyone could help break this down for me, I'd really appreciate it!

I was just sitting here wondering what you all would do in my shoes;
right now I have a single 50g gold bar tucked away, and in about a month or so, I’m planning to head over to a dealer in Denver to pick up about $3,000 worth of silver. I can't help but wonder if it might be smarter to just sell that little bit of gold and add the proceeds to my silver stash, or if I should just leave things exactly as they are...

Anthony Evans78 said:The Dollar has been looking pretty weak for the last 40 years, and honestly, it’ll probably be history in another 40. 🙂

On another note, I have a quick question for those of you who see a direct link between a weakening Dollar and rising gold prices, or vice versa.

Let's say the Dollar keeps sliding for x number of years until it hits rock bottom. What happens at that breaking point? Does gold eventually peg itself to some other currency, essentially restarting the whole cycle from scratch, or does the absolute floor of the Dollar represent the ultimate peak for gold? It's one of those things I can't stop thinking about.

It's more of a big-picture question; as the Dollar falls and gold climbs, where is the actual limit to this system—what comes next? Like, what happens once a new global currency takes over?

John Clark6 said:Honestly, I feel like most people—without getting too carried away with all the nonsense—just completely overlook how often companies skip over the established order. People seem totally oblivious to it, so they don't even think about taking any legal action, and then it just slips right past them...

Actually, that's not quite right.
It isn't really about "not taking action," but rather because most guarantors sign on as what's known as a primary guarantor.

Under the law of obligations, Section 111, Subsection 3,
If a guarantor has committed themselves as a primary guarantor, they are liable to the creditor as if they were the main debtor, meaning the creditor can demand full payment from the original debtor, the guarantor, or both at the exact same time.

A bank could easily just collect the first installment from the guarantor if they decide that's the easiest path forward.

@Joseph Watson3
Honestly, I just feel a bit bad that FileExplorer3 and I didn't catch onto this sooner.

To wrap things up, while the legal basis could stem from a specific legal transaction, an enforcement action is actually more of a formal ruling by a court or a governing body rather than just a standard business deal.

Goodnight, everyone!

Joseph Watson3 said:It seems you're incapable of grasping a basic analogy. In this context, the "legal transaction" is the garnishment. Moving funds from Company X is an act without any legal basis—it's essentially the same as stealing a car without any legal justification.

God help us if this is the caliber of lawyers we have. If you actually claim to be a lawyer, it looks more like you're just desperately trying to play the part.

😲😲😲

First off, you should probably admit you went a bit overboard with that claim regarding whether this is an acquisition from the owner? That logic works for a stolen vehicle, but it simply doesn't apply to what's happening here.

Company X holds a valid, legally binding seizure order. So, there actually *is* a legal basis here (not just a "job"). There was money sitting in that account, and under the standard US collection laws, the funds used for a seizure aren't exempt. It doesn't matter if that money technically belonged to someone else in that specific account.
Is that a difficult concept to grasp? Do you see now why the seizure provides a valid legal foundation?
If you disagree, feel free to make an argument—I'm happy to admit if I'm wrong—but please show me a specific statute that proves a seizure can be baseless.

And wow, look at those phrases; saying stealing a car has no legal basis. Truly brilliant reasoning there; give yourself an F for the day.

To start with, we aren't discussing theft, but rather the purchase of a vehicle that was previously stolen.

I really can't wrap my head around why you think buying a stolen car counts as an acquisition without a basis rather than an acquisition from a non-owner.

There is absolutely, positively no analogy to be found here.

I mentioned quite some time ago that comparing this to a stolen car just isn't a valid analogy.

@Thomas Ortiz3
Does money even qualify as tangible property under the law?

I'm honestly a little worried that we might be completely misinterpreting how the legal requirements actually work here.

Oh boy, Joseph Watson3, oh boy...

If you had actually taken a look at Article 118, you’d see that one of the three requirements for acquiring property from a non-owner is that the transaction must be a paid legal act intended specifically for the acquisition of ownership.

1. Does transferring funds from Company X to the OP's account count as a paid legal act performed for the purpose of gaining ownership?
2. Does this qualify as an acquisition from a non-owner?

I’m a little worried you might be talking nonsense here.

Joseph Watson3 said:The whole thing rests on the assumption that the account holder actually owns the money. If it turns out they don't—which is exactly what happens in court—then you just have two people illegally claiming the same cash. Look at anyone who bought a stolen car; the police seize it regardless of whether they paid full price for it in good faith.

Quincy:

I still don't get this idea about not having to pay it back immediately. You're just delaying the inevitable. Nobody is saying they won't eventually have to return it; they're just debating *when*. What's the point of holding onto it now if you'll just end up paying more in legal fees later???

They shouldn't return it right away because that money is clearly part of the portion of their income protected by law.

Actually, none of us were really debating *when* the money should go back, just whether it should be returned at all.

Joseph Watson3, no offense intended, but I think you're totally missing the mark here.

Without digging deep into the legalities, that car analogy feels a bit off to me because there's a purchase agreement acting as the basis for obtaining ownership. In this case, it isn't a standard transaction; it's an acquisition from someone who didn't actually own the assets, and under the Uniform Commercial Code, a good-faith purchaser isn't always protected when the original owner was a victim of theft.

Joseph Watson3 said:Well, the account holder also has the legal right to spend every cent in that account, so—by your logic—they don't have to pay anything back?

No, we aren't circling. I never said the money shouldn't be returned; I'm saying it doesn't need to be returned immediately just because his debt was sold to a third party due to someone else's mistake. It seems to me this is the one tiny little nuance that you and our colleague just can't seem to wrap your heads around.

Hold on just a second...
It just seems like common sense to me that if there's a garnishment on an account sitting in the red, any money that lands in there—whether it’s a paycheck, a random refund, or even a gift from a friend—will be intercepted by the bank to pay off the creditor before the owner can even touch it, though of course, everything is subject to those standard legal limits under the law.

I’m still having a little trouble wrapping my head around this part about whether they have to pay it back right away. It feels like you might be twisting the facts a bit here, because nobody is actually saying there's an immediate requirement to return it—it's more about whether the obligation will exist at all down the road.
I was just thinking about this while grabbing my morning coffee, and I can't help but wonder—what’s actually the point of holding onto that money now if you're just going to end up paying even more in interest later on? It feels like we're just kicking the can down the road, doesn't it?

Could you please help me clear this up? I'm trying to wrap my head around a situation where there are two claimants without any legal basis, and I was wondering what kind of recourse or indemnity relationship would exist between them in that scenario.

EDIT: Of course, the OP is currently a bit short on cash, so he can't pay it back right this second, but his actual question was whether he’s legally obligated to return it. Since that's a yes, he's got his answer, and there's really no need to overcomplicate things by debating if he should settle up today, tomorrow, or two years from now under a Superior Court order... he'll pay it back once he's back on his feet and has the funds.

Joseph Watson3 said:Well, if you can't see that both the creditor and the OP acquired these funds without any legal basis, then there's really no point in me trying to clarify things further.

Are you suggesting they’re actually joint and several liable to the company that made the payment?
If that's the case, could you please walk me through how the right of recourse would work among joint debtors once one of them settles the debt with Company X?

THE CREDITOR HAS A FINAL, LEGALLY BINDING LEVY ORDER FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT!!!!!!! HELLO !!!!!

Joseph Watson3 It’s funny how things work out sometimes, isn't it? I was just thinking about this earlier while grabbing my morning coffee, and it really reminded me of how much easier life gets when you just let things flow naturally.
So, apparently the enforcement officer actually has the legal grounds to seize funds from Company A, even though they don't have any direct connection to them whatsoever. That is certainly one interesting way to interpret the law!

The creditor actually has a solid legal basis to go after the funds in the debtor's account, provided we aren't talking about any of those specific assets that are legally protected from seizure. I was just sitting here thinking about how much of a difference those government benefits—like the child allowance and disability support—can really make for families trying to get by. It’s one of those things that provides such a necessary bit of breathing room when you're managing everything life throws at you.There really isn't anything stopping them from collecting every single cent sitting in that account.

Chris Nelson26 said:I don't get why you're stressing over this. The bank messed up, not you. That company collecting the judgment didn't swipe your cash—they took someone else's because the bank screwed up, not because of anything you did.

The bank should just settle it with the company or let you run an extra overdraft so you can pay them back whenever... in any case, there's zero legal basis for you to return immediately that money right now.

I just went ahead and read through everything once more to make sure I didn't miss a single detail.
At the end of the day, JP Morgan Chase isn't really concerned about whose money it is; they didn't actually do anything wrong here since they simply received a payment order and processed it exactly how the sender instructed. It was the person who issued the order who made the mistake, and the system protects them by allowing them to file a claim through the appropriate legal channels to recover those funds due to unjust enrichment. I remember dealing with a similar mix-up at my old office back in Chicago, and it really just comes down to following the paper trail. Let's not go over this all over again!

I was just sitting here thinking about how much everything changes, and it really makes you appreciate the little things in life! odmah I’m having a little trouble following your logic on what counts as legal advice here. Are you saying I shouldn't pay right now because there's no immediate obligation, but then once the court ruling actually comes through, I'll just end up paying the full amount plus all those extra legal fees that basically double the debt? Like I mentioned earlier, it feels like a bit of a wash, so I'm just trying to wrap my head around your reasoning.

Joseph Watson3 It’s funny how things work out sometimes, but I was just thinking about what was said earlier.
If that money actually belongs to Company A, then I guess there isn't much point in paying it back to them, right? It’s funny how these things work out sometimes!

Generally speaking, money can only legally belong to one single owner at any given time. If Company A is the rightful owner, then the creditor had absolutely no legal standing to seize those funds, which means they really ought to return them. On the other hand, if the original poster is the actual owner, then everything is perfectly fine and there’s no way for them to get that money back from Company A. It just seems like you and Frank Walker7 are stuck in this strange middle ground where the money belongs to Company A in one sense, yet somehow simultaneously belongs to the OP in another!

I honestly hope you guys aren't just talking nonsense, because I'd hate to see us all getting caught up in something that doesn't actually hold water.

I just noticed that Thomas Ortiz3 gave such a great explanation regarding the actual difference between owning cash and holding a claim on it.
At the end of the day, it feels like we’re just spinning our wheels in circles, going back and forth over a law that is perfectly clear and arguments that honestly couldn't be more straightforward. I honestly don't see any reason to give them anything back; life is too short to worry about people like that, so I’d rather just move on and focus on my own thing.

Thomas Ortiz3 said:From what I can gather, the company initiating the seizure didn't act without legal grounds. I don't see any link between the collection agency and the company that mistakenly wired the funds to his account...

That's exactly my point.

It’s actually pretty funny if you think about it, because you could probably look at this two different ways regarding who is actually coming out ahead here;
- the OP, who now owes less money, effectively seeing an increase in his net worth, or
- the creditor, who is now owed less, also seeing their assets technically grow by reducing their bad debt exposure.

But since the creditor actually has the legal standing and our friend here doesn't, it feels like the one trying to collect is the one without a leg to stand on.

Richard Lewis16 said:I was actually talking about court costs
where on earth would you get lawyer fees from? 🤷
well, he doesn't necessarily have to have them

besides, even if he did say he had some, what then?

🙄
Just to give the author a little more clarity, the legal fees would roughly look like this:
- the initial filing fee $33
- the response to the lawsuit—which might be waived
- the opposing side's legal fees—roughly 3 billable hours x $167 + sales tax = $922
- his own lawyer's fees—it’s unlikely he’d have those, since anyone would probably just advise him to settle.
So, the total amount he’d end up paying is basically equal to the principal itself. Plus, you have interest piling up, though not a huge amount, maybe just a few hundred bucks.

What could he possibly claim to have spent??? I really don't follow the logic behind that sentence.

Paul Jackson61 said:Do you guys actually live in America? You have no idea how long a trial like that would drag on if it even started. I dealt with something similar at my old firm once, and we just wrote off the money. It wasn't worth the headache—financially or mentally. Plus, who’s to say he’d even be found guilty if the mistake was made by a third party—the company itself—transferring funds, and then some agency like the IRS or a federal regulator pulls the money back before he even knows what hit him? If a banker calls you out of the blue saying your account is frozen because of someone else's error... honestly, I can't say if I'd return the money until I'm actually standing in those shoes. Though, if you want my honest opinion right now? I wouldn't. Go ahead and sue me.

Again, this could likely be wrapped up in about three to four months, assuming we're just looking at the timeframe for an initial judgment.
If a judge sees a clear-cut case like this, they’ll likely want to move quickly just to keep their own caseload statistics looking good. They'd probably serve the defendant immediately and schedule a hearing right away.

You all seem to be ignoring the fact that this is an unjust enrichment case, even after the Grinch pointed it out. It doesn't matter who's at fault, who's nice, who's mean, or who has money and who doesn't... the main point remains: I wouldn't pay it back.
Well, go ahead and don't pay it back, but just keep in mind the massive legal fees you'll be racking up because of it.

Chris Doyle4 said:It looks totally intentional on paper, but I promise you, it isn't. The company is demanding I pay back money that—if you ask the clerk there—I don't even owe them. I have zero connection to this business; they just accidentally wired me some cash by mistake, and it happens to be the exact amount of some woman's salary.

Well, you aren't officially on the hook until there's an actual court ruling against you... and that usually comes with interest and legal fees piled on top.
For the millionth time, please try to work something out with them, whether it's a bank or a private company. It’s not a massive amount of money, but honestly, nobody is just going to let you off the hook (and why would they?), yet nobody wants to jump straight into a lawsuit over $500.