De Curso Legal Que Significa
But in society, the state must inevitably mark money as legal tender with which it can facilitate negotiations. It is very difficult for the parties to negotiate this or to determine a type of “currency” other than that which is legal tender, the example of which is the swap, which is not widespread. I can imagine that it is necessary to escape capitalist society, such as a prison, an autonomous community or isolated companies that do not do so to use other types of money as legal tender. Are there examples of the use of non-legal tender? Is it worth considering it as one of the sweets you get at the kiosk for more than negligible value? It is true that the state is a monopoly and, as such, has the exclusive power to establish legal tender in the country. However, this does not prevent people from entering into contracts that generate obligations from spending sums of money, and that it is they who choose which currency to use to raise such an obligation. The only thing the State does is to intervene as an impartial third party in the face of possible conflicts that arise within the framework of the treaty in order to resolve them, it needs an instrument that gives security and confidence to both parties and thus achieves its objectives. This is the role of legal tender, such as the settlement of a debt that the creditor cannot refuse, but only if the contractual dispute is resolved in court, because nothing prevents the conclusion of contracts with foreign currencies from doing so. (OroyFinanzas.com) – The term “legal tender” defines the accepted method of payment as a means of exchange and a legal means of cancelling debts defined by law. Fiat money in the form of coins and banknotes is generally defined as legal tender. At present, the monetary system is governed by the legal tender regime, in which only the currency issued by the monopoly of central banks is legally recognized and applied because it cannot be exchanged for its gold equivalent. It is very interesting to have done all the analysis of Ignacio Lagos, but I only stick to the following fragment: “But if it is criticism, then the criticism is directed not only against the rulers, but also against people who demand higher government spending and ignore the economic consequences they would attract.
I think Hayek`s analysis forgets that the existence of independent central banks theoretically limits the government of the day to issuing money for political purposes. The fact that corruption and clientelism in some states lead to the theory not being put into practice does not necessarily mean that the theory fails. It is true that in people, people, have the greatest importance in these processes. Whether or not we discuss the concept of the term “legal tender”, the truth is that it is the simplest way to solve all kinds of obligations, even nowadays we could say that it is an institution because it is really effective in solving many social problems. We know that money is not a question of today, but that it already existed more than 2000 years ago and that at that time this analysis would gain in importance. But hey, I`ll leave the opinions open for you to comment on. The second paragraph of the above is perhaps the most important, in every respect. In Argentina, we clearly see how the issuance of “money” depends purely and exclusively on the government in place, with which any idea of this “money” is visible to the naked eye that it has no value, whether it is “legal tender” or not. In the United States, the same thing happened, the issuance of currency itself is controlled by a central bank subject to political power, so the 2008 crisis originated in this country, since the same government was the promoter of this conflict.
On the other hand, and this is where I wanted to go, the Central Bank of the European Community in Europe is in the hands of all countries, so none of them can decide on their own whether to increase or decrease monetary issues. Therefore, it could be said that it is not only a self-sufficient and independent entity, but that it even configures the term supranational, where all the states belonging to this community give it the power to settle these issues without having the opportunity to discuss, no matter how harmful the measures are, since they consider it completely independent. Here we can see how this body undoubtedly limits the power of states and that, with coins that would not be in “legal circulation” but would be accepted by many people, they would put an end to political opportunism and the desire to take all the profit that leaves the ball to other governments. Although I think it is necessary for the State to establish legal tender, since it offers legal certainty, from the moment when, faced with an offence, I know that I will sue before the judiciary and in our case, they will give me pesos that I can exchange for goods and services, since they will be accepted on the market as a means of payment. However, this does not take away the possibility that I pay someone with something else (car, well, jewel). It is completely legal. It is also true that money did not create anyone and it was born from a spontaneous order, and at some point there was no more money, people were automatically looking for another means of payment. In addition, a group of countries can also relinquish its economic sovereignty and agree on a common currency as a legal tender, such as the suspended euro or SUCRE. Suppose there is a debt dispute between two parties. If the debtor proposes to settle the debt in the forced currency, the judge accepts this method of payment as valid and rejects the creditor`s claim. On the other hand, if the debtor proposes to pay in another currency, the judge could refuse this method of payment and require that it be in forced currency. As for the table of contents data, we`ll be publishing a few articles in the coming weeks, but I agree with you that it would be good to cover the trend regularly.
Currently, the resources we have prefer to focus them on issues that affect long-term value. One issue that is particularly close to our hearts is financial repression in all its expressions. Although short films for cradles could perhaps be included in this category. When we talk about legal tender, we are referring to the ownership of the currency, by which its use as a means of payment is reinforced by the laws, so that no one can refuse to accept the national currency as a means of payment on the national territory. In my opinion, the problem is not that it is the State that prescribes the imposed legal tender of a currency, but that this, combined with excessive expenditure of the money supply, leads to the devaluation of the currency – the same thing that is imposed – which is manifested by an increase in the prices of goods and services. that this rise in prices in turn leads to an increase in public spending, which in turn issues more money to curb the imbalances that occur, thus creating an “inflationary spiral” (a situation in which inflation increases mainly due to the same propagation mechanisms). has been declared acceptable for debt cancellation.