Conspiracy Theory

[Yesterday]

Hi, I had wondered really about whether or not fractional reserve was happening then. According to this book and my understanding of fractional reserve, which is sketchy at best hence the desire for conversation so I can learn, I had understood it to mean that notes had a set value for its counterpart in gold and the amounts of notes for offer from the bank was related to the amount of gold that was lent to the government at the time. There were other bank instruments yes based on bank reserves (assets?) that also paved the way for circulating medium that was regarded according to this book as acceptable forms of currency but I was just referring to the notes at that particular time, a very small window to the whole. Got to start somewhere right?

Would you explain what you mean by fractional reserve being used then?

I can correct myself over one thing....the bank did not have reserve at the time I was referring to with the notes being the equivalent of silver. Gold came later and so did reserves....

[Yesterday]

http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/russia-slams-u-s-deployment-of-patriot-missiles-in-poland-1.292353

http://www.economist.com/node/15891381

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

http://news.sympatico.cbc.ca/World/ContentPosting?feedname=CBC-WORLD-V3&showbyline=True&date=true&newsitemid=poland-missile-defence

Hi Bush_Cheney, here are some links for the Polish story....

[Yesterday]

In the book I linked from Google books, these are some of the points I find interesting and wonder how it does if at all compare in some way to what is happening right now...

44. The new subscriptions to the bank under this act amounted to (pounds)1,001,171 10s. ; two hundred thousand pounds of bank notes and eight hundred thousand of exchequer tallies being taken out of circulation, and received at par in the subscription, raised the value of the remainder and in the course of a year, bank notes which bore no interest were at par and the bills which bore interest were at premium.

Does this mean simply put, that being received at par is zero interest and that removing exchequer tallies is removing circulating currency medium thus revaluing whats left?

85. That while the drain of specie is going on, their issues should be contracted as much as possible, but that as soon as the tide had given signs of ceasing and turning the other way, it was then safe to extend their issue freely. This was the policy they acted upon and it was entirely successful.

I have to wonder if the hold back by the banks right now is simply market trends or is it a reset as per the situation in the first paragraph.

[bush_cheney2004]

Hi, I wouldn't say knee jerk opinion. The articles regarding this have been on my msn page for a few days. Do you read the news from your internet? As for being concerned about this, I think it is a valid concern. Russia and the US say this is a separate issue and are getting along on other issues and this shouldn't interfere with them (whatever those are) but Russia does say it will look at this a possible act of aggression. Not good.

Russia says a lot things...the Americans let their actions do the talking.

There are a lot of people who are just tired of being at war. Go to the polish forum boards and see what the Polish people think and feel about this. I did. They are a sad people lately.

Not as sad as they were 40 years ago. Poland embraced and emerged with western ideals based largely on what they saw was possible...in America...from cowboy hats to labor movements.

I would not want to see trade sanctions against the US unless deserved, I don't know if China actually did a few years ago but it is a story floating around conspiracy boards and it would of been over this so-called lien China has over the US.

I just want Canadians to put their money where their mouths are....don't like US policies?...then stop being so dependent on trade with the Evil Giant.

By the way, as far as my feeling for the US. Of course I am a little angry about the stock/bank fraud rampant there, anyone who has lost money and even some who didn't have sore feelings for the US for letting this happen and being so implicit in it.

The US owes your portfolio nothing....you could have left your money in "safe" Canadian banks.

Do I think the US is awful because of this, no. Am I tired of wondering who is going is going to bomb the US and as a result rearrange my life? YES! And let me be specific, it would not be the US itself or the general public themselves, my feelings are directed at the US government past and present.

Sorry...it's all one package. Canada's governments have not been all that great either.

I can also get a good head of steam over the Patriot Act and more indecencies the US government is trying to put over on its people. This makes me very angry and I must also say that it makes me not want to live there. I think it very important that there is a big difference between the US potential for greatness and the potential of its government. Its potential lies in its people, they are not the source of my being upset with the US.

LOL! Your concern is noted, but more people vote with their feet for the USA than Canada...always have. Some people actually use Canada as a stepping stone to America. There is a reason why America's population is 305,000,000 vs. 35,000,000...and it's not just the weather!

I am sad about it, Bush et al really did a number on the US people and her sovereignty, they should all go to jail forever.

Nonsense...you know very little about US history if you think Bush is all that...see Lincoln, FDR, and Kennedy.

With Obama, I kind of sit on the fence. There is no way to over-estimate the mess the man got handed when he took the seat. There are some things he has done that are just way out to lunch and I just have to wonder. Like not removing the Patriot Act. I don't know how knowledgeable you are of the global settlements going on around the world. Well, Obama is stalling for some reason, this is my personal experience, as I've mentioned before my involvement with CMKM. The mess down there is huge!

Obama cannot "remove" the Patriot Act....that would be Congress. Your concern is noted but is about as important or relevant as my disdain for free speech limits in Canada (e.g. hate speech laws).

I feel sorry for the mess he inherited. I still have hope, not necessarily faith, that he will be effective at righting the wrong and carrying the US forward.

The USA is bigger than any one man...it will go forward the same way as it always has. Should I waste my time worrying about Canada?

US people have cause for concern over the stimulus money he is spending and have huge concerns about this debt repayment. I don't blame them. Hence my interest in ZIRP, I would like to be able to feel some sort of confidence for the US people and I am hoping to find good news as I learn what zirping really means. Read my next post.... The US people have been through so much!!!! Too much!!!!!

American Rule #17: Always be cautious when another national is "worried" about America.

[Yesterday]

Nonsense...you know very little about US history if you think Bush is all that...see Lincoln, FDR, and Kennedy.

Teach me something...put up a link...all your points noted too. I however am not concerned that you as a US citizen(?) are on a Canadian forum. I imagine you are here to learn and socialize and make note of your own concern both about Canada and the US. Much like myself.

American Rule #17: Always be cautious when another national is "worried" about America.

[bush_cheney2004]

Teach me something...put up a link...all your points noted too. I however am not concerned that you as a US citizen(?) are on a Canadian forum. I imagine you are here to learn and socialize and make note of your own concern both about Canada and the US. Much like myself.

No, I am here to disabuse Canadians of their false notions about an America that has never existed. This "Canadian forum" runs on an American engine, is hosted by an American company, in an American city, and America is a common thread to be found in many forum topics. America is here by default.

Presidents Lincoln and FDR took strong and controversial measures to protect the USA from enemies, foreign and domestic....just like Bush.

[Yesterday]

No, I am here to disabuse Canadians of their false notions about an America that has never existed. This "Canadian forum" runs on an American engine, is hosted by an American company, in an American city, and America is a common thread to be found in many forum topics. America is here by default.

Presidents Lincoln and FDR took strong and controversial measures to protect the USA from enemies, foreign and domestic....just like Bush.

So, one of your concerns is the disinformation and misunderstanding of the US and I don't blame you. Isn't that interesting about about the American engine. That's kind of neat. The modern age of technology. Our discussions could be really interesting if given the chance because my main interest is getting to the truth of the US and Canada.

My only introduction really to Lincoln or FDR is through alternative media and you should be pleased that I realize the faultiness of a lot of it. I also realize the faultiness of main stream media. So here I am...can you give me a link to a specific paper or such that describes something you understand and find pertinent about them? It would be a good place to start this trek of understanding.

[bush_cheney2004]

So, one of your concerns is the disinformation and misunderstanding of the US and I don't blame you. Isn't that interesting about about the American engine. That's kind of neat. The modern age of technology. Our discussions could be really interesting if given the chance because my main interest is getting to the truth of the US and Canada.

It's not so much disinformation as willful ignorance by some Canadians and Americans. They want to believe in fairy tales rather than deal with the harsh realities of economic, social, and political history. I embrace the "good" with the "bad" and strive to avoid any such moral characterizations. Gazing at America is more than just a Canadian hobby, it is an essential element and foil to define a Canadian identity. The least I can do is return the favor.

My only introduction really to Lincoln or FDR is through alternative media and you should be pleased that I realize the faultiness of a lot of it. I also realize the faultiness of main stream media. So here I am...can you give me a link to a specific paper or such that describes something you understand and find pertinent about them? It would be a good place to start this trek of understanding.

The specific comparison for Bush and previous presidential security actions is summarized in this 2001 commentary:

...But if history is any guide -- and it is -- we see that the Bush administration's proposals, even at the far end of the ledger,

pale in comparison to what previous wartime administrations have imposed.

Ironically, we may be the first generation of Americans to wrestle so intensely with this issue. Faced with the choice between security and civil liberties in times of crisis, previous presidents -- John Adams, Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt -- to a man (and with little hesitation) chose to drastically curtail civil liberties. It is also worth noting that despite these previous and numerous extreme measures, there was little long-term or corrosive effect on society after the security threat had subsided. When the crisis ended, normalcy returned, and so too did civil liberties, invariably stronger than before.

http://www.insteadof.com/TerrorAttack/p49.htm

Edited July 6, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Yesterday]

It's not so much disinformation as willful ignorance by some Canadians and Americans. They want to believe in fairy tales rather than deal with the harsh realities of economic, social, and political history. I embrace the "good" with the "bad" and strive to avoid any such moral characterizations. Gazing at America is more than just a Canadian hobby, it is an essential element and foil to define a Canadian identity. The least I can do is return the favor.

The specific comparison for Bush and previous presidential security actions is summarized in this 2001 commentary:

...But if history is any guide -- and it is -- we see that the Bush administration's proposals, even at the far end of the ledger,

pale in comparison to what previous wartime administrations have imposed.

Ironically, we may be the first generation of Americans to wrestle so intensely with this issue. Faced with the choice between security and civil liberties in times of crisis, previous presidents -- John Adams, Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt -- to a man (and with little hesitation) chose to drastically curtail civil liberties. It is also worth noting that despite these previous and numerous extreme measures, there was little long-term or corrosive effect on society after the security threat had subsided. When the crisis ended, normalcy returned, and so too did civil liberties, invariably stronger than before.

http://www.insteadof.com/TerrorAttack/p49.htm

A very well chosen article, thank-you. It's kind of funny, last night I was sitting with a friend of mine who touched on the subject of the Patriot Act. I looked at him and said,' You know, lets look at it from a strictly strategic point of view. I wonder what its true importance is?'. I would put this article on the table as a reference to such strategy.

What an interesting comparison of so many leaders. He lines them up pretty good over their transgressions with this Act. I guess with a history like this the fear I see in the possible magnifying of this situation could be well grounded but first we need to see what Obama would do in such a case as this. And yes, both US and Canadian stock(people) are tough and resilient as are most of the immigrants and such. Bouncing back is the only option!

I wonder what Harper would do?

[bush_cheney2004]

....I wonder what Harper would do?

Harper would do the same thing that Trudeau did for the "October Crisis"....curtail "freedoms" until the threat has passed.

[Pliny]

View PostPliny, on 05 July 2010 - 09:05 AM, said:

.....As for current issues that are forefront and center on my mind...how about Poland? The plane crash still sends shivers down my spine. Now they are accepting without trepidation this missile base the US wants to build there. I suppose they think the US can save them from Russia? Good luck. If the US struck out at Russia the world would annihilate the US, the world is so tired of the US.

Is this just a kneejerk opinion or do you have some basis in fact for your assessment of US-Poland relations? The US already saved them from "Russia"....see Cold War. Pershing II's and GLCMs (missiles) helped to break the stalemate back in the 80's. The "world" is so tired of the US that your own nation (Canada) is fighting alongside Americans in Afghanistan.

I never said this. I believe this was Yesterday's post.

I may have confused you by not putting in quote marks correctly. I have made the correction in the original post.

Edited July 6, 2010 by Pliny

[Pliny]

Hi, I had wondered really about whether or not fractional reserve was happening then. According to this book and my understanding of fractional reserve, which is sketchy at best hence the desire for conversation so I can learn, I had understood it to mean that notes had a set value for its counterpart in gold and the amounts of notes for offer from the bank was related to the amount of gold that was lent to the government at the time.

I'm a little confused by what you are saying here.

Fractional reserve banking is a simple concept.It's a risk based upon the hope that everyone with a deposit will not claim their deposits all at once. Essentially, if the deposits total $1000 and the largest amount that people have ever claimed in a day is $500 then it may be safe to "lend" out the other $500 and profit on the interest of the loans.

So the bank is willing to risk lending 50% of it's deposits. 50% is the fraction of his reserves that he is willing to take a risk with lending.

There were other bank instruments yes based on bank reserves (assets?) that also paved the way for circulating medium that was regarded according to this book as acceptable forms of currency but I was just referring to the notes at that particular time, a very small window to the whole. Got to start somewhere right?

Would you explain what you mean by fractional reserve being used then?

The notes were records of deposits and were often used as currency.

What money was used as currency at that time was called "specie" - Coins of silver and gold.

I know what you mean I think by the question mark at the end of the capital statement...I'll post the corresponding paragraph. I am in no means endorsing or even fully understanding yet what this guy trying to accomplish with his book but he does go to a lot of trouble to redefine the view of circulating medium and capital. For me it is a wealth of opinion and knowledge.

There are two views. The most popular view is that fiat currency is "money" and thus capital. The electronic entries on your account are debits and credits of money and are capital. These are really debts and are claims on future goods and services.

To most economists, accountants, and especially currency traders and financial advisers this is a totally legitimate means of trade and economic activity. It is the way of the world today and has been since we went off the gold standard.

The other view, the one I hold, is that money in order to be considered "money", i.e., capital, and not a debt, must be an asset or commodity itself. A true currency, if not the asset itself, must be redeemable for it's stated value of money. Economists would call me a "gold bug". Gold doesn't have to be the standard but could be.

The reason we went off the gold standard was because governments overspent and couldn't pay their debts. Nixon ended all gold payments internationally by canceling Bretton-Woods. US dollars were entirely a fiat paper currency after that. It must be pointed out that there were no American domestic gold certificates issued as currency after 1933 and no silver certificates issued after, I think it was, 1963.

A fiat currency allows governments to meet all it's financial obligations and emergencies without itself being dependent upon it's own reserves.

I'll look up Lew Rockwell, do I sound like a libertarian? I haven't defined myself yet, the quiz posted here somewhere puts me dead center left on the libertarian bottom of the graph.

No, you don't sound like a Libertarian. As you are reading about economics, the Austrian theory of Economics is important and is a broadening of the base.

[bush_cheney2004]

I never said this. I believe this was Yesterday's post.

I may have confused you by not putting in quote marks correctly. I have made the correction in the original post.

OK...my bad...the owner has responded above.

[Pliny]

OK...my bad...the owner has responded above.

No. actually.. it was my bad.

[Pliny]

Yesterday:

I ran out of time on my last post and wanted to add something further on the following point I made:

"To most economists, accountants, and especially currency traders and financial advisers this is a totally legitimate means of trade and economic activity. It is the way of the world today and has been since we went off the gold standard.

The other view, the one I hold, is that money in order to be considered "money", i.e., capital, and not a debt, must be an asset or commodity itself. A true currency, if not the asset itself, must be redeemable for it's stated value of money. Economists would call me a "gold bug". Gold doesn't have to be the standard but could be."

The two views can be best encapsulated as being that governments should run the economy of a nation with the tools of controlling the money supply, interest rates, credit, etc., and economies need to be controlled by governments. And the opposing view that economies best thrive on their own and government's role is not one of regulation but of ensuring fraud, force and, basically criminal behavior is minimized (impossible to eliminate).

What do you see when you consider my motivations for joining MLF and what were yours?

You do seem like you are here for the reasons you say.

I am here because when I first got on the internet I started participating in a forum that closed and most of the posters moved here. I did too but didn't stick around and only came back about 2 years ago because there were some interesting arguments to be made and I learn how to use the information I have read regarding politics and economics in those arguments - it gives me a greater understanding of my own point of view. I disagree with the current lib-left view of politics.

[Yesterday]

You do seem like you are here for the reasons you say.

I am here because when I first got on the internet I started participating in a forum that closed and most of the posters moved here. I did too but didn't stick around and only came back about 2 years ago because there were some interesting arguments to be made and I learn how to use the information I have read regarding politics and economics in those arguments - it gives me a greater understanding of my own point of view. I disagree with the current lib-left view of politics.

Hi Pliny, I'm glad you feel this way. I am awful at expressing myself...hoping to learn better how to understand my own point of view and be effective with it too. That, and there is so much I want to learn and understand...I am pretty much a introvert...this is a big step for me. People as a general rule freak me out but I find everyone so interesting at the same time.

Hi, I had wondered really about whether or not fractional reserve was happening then. According to this book and my understanding of fractional reserve, which is sketchy at best hence the desire for conversation so I can learn, I had understood it to mean that notes had a set value for its counterpart in gold and the amounts of notes for offer from the bank was related to the amount of gold that was lent to the government at the time.

I'm a little confused by what you are saying here.

Sorry my bad....giggle. I think I got ahead of myself. I'll pull some material out of this book to help explain myself better on another post.

No, you don't sound like a Libertarian. As you are reading about economics, the Austrian theory of Economics is important and is a broadening of the base.

I didn't think so but I'm still expanding my understanding of what Libertarian really is...

Edited July 7, 2010 by Yesterday

[Yesterday]

I look at this book and wonder how much this work is responsible for the current monster of debt?

The other view, the one I hold, is that money in order to be considered "money", i.e., capital, and not a debt, must be an asset or commodity itself. A true currency, if not the asset itself, must be redeemable for it's stated value of money. Economists would call me a "gold bug". Gold doesn't have to be the standard but could be."

I feel the same about the need for circulating medium to be fixed to an asset value, and definitely agree with you and disagree with buddy here over the value of debt.

18. The considerations we presented respecting definitions show, not only that they are arbitrary, but that their limits are not within our own control, if we would argue correctly. Whether we will, or not, things of the same nature MUST be classed under the same appellation. Thus, a controversy has arisen among writers and speakers of monetary science, whether 'bills of exchange' are to be classed as currency or circulating medium or not. Many modern authorities exclude them from that definition and restrict the currency to money and Bank notes payable to the bearer on demand. But we say, that such a definition cannot be accepted - that it is contrary to all the fundamental principles of sound philosophy, to exclude bills of exchange from the designation of currency and that it is not a matter of choice , but an imperative necessity, to include them in that title.

19. The idea of excluding bills of exchange from the designation of currency or circulating medium, arises, we believe, from a profound misconception of the fundamental meaning of the expression ' circulating medium'. Sir Francis Baring seems to be the originator of this fallacy. He says, ' Circulation, as the word implies, must have a point or center on which the whole can turn; and that center as far as relates to the Island of Great Britain, is the Bank of England, whose paper or notes represent that object for every useful or beneficial purpose'. He uses the words, circulation and circulating medium as synonymous, and he has been led away by species conceit, into a most transparent misconception of the fundamental idea of the word. For he and almost all modern thinkers on the subject, and more importantly the framers of the Act of 1844 evidently understood the expression circulating medium to mean the medium which itself circulates. The circulating medium is not necessarily the medium which circulates itself, but the medium which circulates commodities. It is the circulating power of commerce - that power which transfers commodities from the possession of one person to another; and hence, whatever performs that duty is ' circulating medium'. No doubt, some of the superior forms of circulating medium also circulate themselves as well, such as money and Bank notes, bills of exchange to a lesser degree; but it is an unquestionable fact that the fundamental idea of circulating medium is not the itinerating medium, but the power which transfers commodities or the transferring medium.

23. A parallel course of argument applies with irresistible force to the question of the circulating medium. To exclude bills of exchange from it is precisely one of those false distinctions which obscured and retarded the progress of other sciences....

46. These considerations show the fundamental nature of Capital and Credit, and the essential distinction between capital and commodities. The one being the power which transfers the other and only being metaphorically applied to the commodities in which it is temporarily invested. Hence, as Capital and Credit perform exactly the same functions and are essentially of the same nature - the one being the symbol of past labor, the other of future labor, but both being transferring power is it not incorrect expression to say that Credit is Capital?

Just wondering....is it a trick of old English or perhaps am I being a bit thick...but doesn't this sentence seem to negate his point?

78. Another most false distinction , which is even of more importance, because it is one of the grounds of the Act of 1844, is that often made between Bank notes and Bills of Exchange, because it is alleged, that one closes a transaction and finally liquidates a debt and the other does not. Thus Colonel Torrens who is a very ardent advocate of the Act 1844 says,' The terms, money and currency have hitherto been employed to denote those instruments of exchange which possess intrinsic or derivative value, and by which, from law or custom, debts are discharged and transactions finally closed. Bank notes, payable in specie by demand, have been included under these terms as well as coin because by law and custom the acceptance of notes from a solvent bank, no less than the acceptance of coin, liquidates debt and closes transactions ; while bills of exchange, bank credits, cheques and other instruments by which the use of money is economized have not been included under the terms of money and currency, because the acceptance of such instruments does not liquidate debts and finally close transactions.'.

I would have to contend that the law regarding the use of/definition of debt/credit would of been able to hold a moral footing in that regardless of the fact that scientifically you can add the sides and come up with similar ends, debt is a bad thing and should be subject to a more biased set of regulations and definitions. Today's scenario proves the fallacy of this theory.

[Pliny]

18. The considerations we presented respecting definitions show, not only that they are arbitrary, but that their limits are not within our own control, if we would argue correctly. Whether we will, or not, things of the same nature MUST be classed under the same appellation. Thus, a controversy has arisen among writers and speakers of monetary science, whether 'bills of exchange' are to be classed as currency or circulating medium or not. Many modern authorities exclude them from that definition and restrict the currency to money and Bank notes payable to the bearer on demand. But we say, that such a definition cannot be accepted - that it is contrary to all the fundamental principles of sound philosophy, to exclude bills of exchange from the designation of currency and that it is not a matter of choice , but an imperative necessity, to include them in that title.

The definitions are not arbitrary. They are precise under law. They are casual and often in error in common usage and little effort is made to correct the errors. Something as important as trade, debt and contracts could never be left to arbitrariness.

Whether to include "bills of exchange" under the term "currency" is a demonstration of the the writers error in understanding the term "bill". A bill is something that must be paid. It is a debt and is usually a claim on something in a contract. Therefore, a "bill of exchange" could fall under the term currency if it is used in that manner and passed from hand to hand as a form of exchange until someone actually redeems it for it's stated claim and the bill is deemed to have been paid. Once redeemed the bill is retired.

19. The idea of excluding bills of exchange from the designation of currency or circulating medium, arises, we believe, from a profound misconception of the fundamental meaning of the expression ' circulating medium'. Sir Francis Baring seems to be the originator of this fallacy. He says, ' Circulation, as the word implies, must have a point or center on which the whole can turn; and that center as far as relates to the Island of Great Britain, is the Bank of England, whose paper or notes represent that object for every useful or beneficial purpose'. He uses the words, circulation and circulating medium as synonymous, and he has been led away by species conceit, into a most transparent misconception of the fundamental idea of the word. For he and almost all modern thinkers on the subject, and more importantly the framers of the Act of 1844 evidently understood the expression circulating medium to mean the medium which itself circulates. The circulating medium is not necessarily the medium which circulates itself, but the medium which circulates commodities. It is the circulating power of commerce - that power which transfers commodities from the possession of one person to another; and hence, whatever performs that duty is ' circulating medium'. No doubt, some of the superior forms of circulating medium also circulate themselves as well, such as money and Bank notes, bills of exchange to a lesser degree; but it is an unquestionable fact that the fundamental idea of circulating medium is not the itinerating medium, but the power which transfers commodities or the transferring medium.

"Itinerating medium"? "Species conceit"? It is no wonder he feels the language of economics is arbitrary.

When talking about economic terms seriously one must use the legal or lawful definition as contained in something like Black's law dictionary. The sloppiness of the casual user is the reaso for much of the confusion regarding economics.

is it not incorrect expression to say that Credit is Capital?

I would agree with that. Credit is debt.

[Pliny]

Hi Pliny, I'm glad you feel this way. I am awful at expressing myself...hoping to learn better how to understand my own point of view and be effective with it too. That, and there is so much I want to learn and understand...I am pretty much a introvert...this is a big step for me. People as a general rule freak me out but I find everyone so interesting at the same time.

Not that it matters because it is merely my opinion but to me you sound intelligent enough but you have been crushed and become uncertain of yourself. Usually the doing of some callous "friend".

Anyway, just take that as a comment. You express yourself as well as or better than some others on this forum. If you find others interesting then that is all that is required. Just stay interested.

I too am learning some writing skills to express myself.

[Yesterday]

Not that it matters because it is merely my opinion but to me you sound intelligent enough but you have been crushed and become uncertain of yourself. Usually the doing of some callous "friend".

Anyway, just take that as a comment. You express yourself as well as or better than some others on this forum. If you find others interesting then that is all that is required. Just stay interested.

I too am learning some writing skills to express myself.

Hi, I'm glad I don't sound like a raving lunatic...giggle. No callous friend, just always mis-understood because my tongue just does not always co-operate with my brain. Like a fear of speaking...I refuse to accept it any longer so here I am. I am going to learn to get past it dammit! Giggle!.

I like the way you write. You and Toadbrother always seem to teach me something and neither of you are too ornery(giggle) which I appreciate. You express your sense of humor well. At least you have with me a bit on this thread. I can really appreciate that because I love to laugh, a good sense of humor is tops with me. I've really learned in life to laugh at myself, everyone else around me takes me serious enough, I don't always have too...giggle.

We are far enough into this heat wave for me to feel like my brain is turning to mush. I tried to spend some time last night pulling out references that I would like to understand but its just not working...gosh, too hot!!!! Its finally supposed to start raining today, with that relief perhaps I can get back to our discussion. Thank-you so much for talking to me. Beat the heat my new friend.

[maple_leafs182]

Governments get central banks to buy government bonds in order for dollars to come into circulation. Central banks create this money out of thin air and charge interest on it automatically putting the nation into debt. Dollars are created out of debt.

Commercial banks loan us dollars that they create out of thin air and charge interest on it. The banks in Canada don't actually require a reserve to loan but i think they keep around 1:9 of dollars in their reserves. They actually pay us in Bank Notes which are considered as good as Dollars. We then have to labor in order to earn real dollars to pay them back, we also have to pay interest on the loan. This is creating new money in the system. Inflation is the expansion of the money supply. The more Dollars their are the less they are worth.

Right now Canada, America, and many other countries have interest rates near zero which encourages lending. The more loans the more the money supply is expanded the more inflation there is. Central banks are printing billions in stimulus which is also expanding the money supply. Gold is going up as a result. Inflation causes prices to rise, it is an indirect tax on the people, our cost of living goes up.

So Central banks have the power to control the purchasing power of nations currencies. Many central banks go to the Bank for International Settlement for, well here is what it says on their homepage "The BIS is an international; organisation which fosters cooperation among central banks and other agencies in pursuit of monetary and financial stability. Its banking services are provided exclusively to central banks and international organisations". Central banks get policies from these guys.

The conspiracy is that a bunch of International bankers and corporate leaders control the monetary system and the economy. Right now they are working towards creating a one world economy, they could achieve that by creating a one world currency. They would first need to bring down the US dollar as the world reserve currency, which they are doing. The UN just said that the dollar should be ditched as the world reserve currency. They are just trying to centralize power.

"The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented.

Banking was conceived in iniquity and born in sin. Bankers own the Earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough money to buy it back again...

Take this great power away from them and all great fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for then this would be a better and happier world to live in. But if you want to continue to be slaves of the banks and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let bankers continue to create money and control credit".

Sir Josiah Stamp Director, Bank of England 1928-1941

(reputed to be the 2nd richest man in Britain at the time)

Edited July 9, 2010 by maple_leafs182

[Yesterday]

Right now Canada, America, and many other countries have interest rates near zero which encourages lending. The more loans the more the money supply is expanded the more inflation there is. Central banks are printing billions in stimulus which is also expanding the money supply. Gold is going up as a result. Inflation causes prices to rise, it is an indirect tax on the people, our cost of living goes up.

Hi Maple, Pliny had mentioned before about the fact that the banks where contracting, not really lending, and I had found a ZIRP article that discusses the difference between qualitative and quantitative spending which shows one possible reason why the banks are not lending publicly. My understanding is sketchy but right now it seems as though what is happening is that government bonds are asset backed as opposed to circulating medium which is fiat and until the bank reserve is large enough to be reset to asset backed as well they will continue to grow. I don't know if I am right but this is my thought at the moment.

What I am trying to get to the bottom of is whether what we are going through is a currency reset or just bad market trends due to the recession.

I had read that in a case where the value of a currency has dropped due to excessive notes in circulation, the price of gold goes through the roof and foreign exchanges fall. Kind of sounds something like what is going on right now, I am still reading about this to get a better understanding...

When a reset needs to happen, it is important to reduce first the currency in circulation, both kinds, the debt and the capital. I'm still reading...

I know about the BIS and the Basil Accords, I read about one recent resolution between the major banks around the globe regarding blackballing. Sounds good but will they actually do it? Basil Accords are unenforceable as they are not a regulating faction. So my opinion of them is that they are akin to a great big opinion factory that amounts to not much more than a better business bureau for the banks. My opinion might change though as I learn more.

This is all new to me and I am learning as I go. I've gathered up some info from some of our earlier posts and am pulling some more info to expand the concepts and should be posting tomorrow about it.

The conspiracy is that a bunch of International bankers and corporate leaders control the monetary system and the economy. Right now they are working towards creating a one world economy, they could achieve that by creating a one world currency. They would first need to bring down the US dollar as the world reserve currency, which they are doing. The UN just said that the dollar should be ditched as the world reserve currency. They are just trying to centralize power

I've heard a lot about this one world economy, this I can see whereas I cannot see a one world government. Perhaps a few hundred years from now but the middle east at least would have to calm down first...that is going to take an awful long time. The global cohesion just is not there. Different governments forming organizations to work together on global issues does not for me spell the end of individual sovereignty. Not yet any ways....

I am glad to hear from you...this is your thread and I had wondered if you were watching...

[Yesterday]

Right now Canada, America, and many other countries have interest rates near zero which encourages lending. The more loans the more the money supply is expanded the more inflation there is. Central banks are printing billions in stimulus which is also expanding the money supply. Gold is going up as a result. Inflation causes prices to rise, it is an indirect tax on the people, our cost of living goes up.

Hi Maple, Pliny had mentioned before about the fact that the banks where contracting, not really lending, and I had found a ZIRP article that discusses the difference between qualitative and quantitative spending which shows one possible reason why the banks are not lending publicly. My understanding is sketchy but right now it seems as though what is happening is that government bonds are asset backed as opposed to circulating medium which is fiat and until the bank reserve is large enough to be reset to asset backed as well they will continue to grow. I don't know if I am right but this is my thought at the moment.

What I am trying to get to the bottom of is whether what we are going through is a currency reset or just bad market trends due to the recession.

I had read that in a case where the value of a currency has dropped due to excessive notes in circulation, the price of gold goes through the roof and foreign exchanges fall. Kind of sounds something like what is going on right now, I am still reading about this to get a better understanding...

When a reset needs to happen, it is important to reduce first the currency in circulation, both kinds, the debt and the capital. I'm still reading...

I know about the BIS and the Basil Accords, I read about one recent resolution between the major banks around the globe regarding blackballing. Sounds good but will they actually do it? Basil Accords are unenforceable as they are not a regulating faction. So my opinion of them is that they are akin to a great big opinion factory that amounts to not much more than a better business bureau for the banks. My opinion might change though as I learn more.

This is all new to me and I am learning as I go. I've gathered up some info from some of our earlier posts and am pulling some more info to expand the concepts and should be posting tomorrow about it.

The conspiracy is that a bunch of International bankers and corporate leaders control the monetary system and the economy. Right now they are working towards creating a one world economy, they could achieve that by creating a one world currency. They would first need to bring down the US dollar as the world reserve currency, which they are doing. The UN just said that the dollar should be ditched as the world reserve currency. They are just trying to centralize power

I've heard a lot about this one world economy, this I can see whereas I cannot see a one world government. Perhaps a few hundred years from now but the middle east at least would have to calm down first...that is going to take an awful long time. The global cohesion just is not there. Different governments forming organizations to work together on global issues does not for me spell the end of individual sovereignty. Not yet any ways....

I am glad to hear from you...this is your thread and I had wondered if you were watching...

[Pliny]

Hi Maple, Pliny had mentioned before about the fact that the banks where contracting, not really lending, and I had found a ZIRP article that discusses the difference between qualitative and quantitative spending which shows one possible reason why the banks are not lending publicly. My understanding is sketchy but right now it seems as though what is happening is that government bonds are asset backed as opposed to circulating medium which is fiat and until the bank reserve is large enough to be reset to asset backed as well they will continue to grow. I don't know if I am right but this is my thought at the moment.

What I am trying to get to the bottom of is whether what we are going through is a currency reset or just bad market trends due to the recession.

The government guarantees bonds and are asset backed. What assets back those bonds?

Are fiat currencies not asset backed? The Government guarantees them as "legal tender". Is government then, just forcing people to use the currency?

[Yesterday]

The government guarantees bonds and are asset backed. What assets back those bonds?

Are fiat currencies not asset backed? The Government guarantees them as "legal tender". Is government then, just forcing people to use the currency?

Hi Pliny, I wish I could answer this for you. I wish you could answer it for me. Government assets...mmm. I would think that perhaps the premiums paid to the government on every dollar loaned/printed/recorded by the banks could be considered a viable asset. I wonder if the banks also pay this premium on dollars lent to the government itself? I have to wonder how much of the assets behind the government are hedged on future production if any. On future commercial growth for instance which would create a need for more money being printed/loaned/etc. which in turn pays out more premium. I wonder if a portion of tax collections are considered an asset? Once again a hedgeable number. I am thinking about a few hefty mineral companies that I know about that have filed production start dates in the coming few years here in Canada and I wonder if the banks/government can create loans/bonds today using incomes projected from future collected taxes and interest collected from these projects. These are very large ventures.

As for fiat, my current understanding is that no it would not be asset backed due to fractionalization and low to zero reserves. At least not metal/mineral backed, it seems to be mostly future labour backed, debt backed. A situation easily encouraged due to excessive volumes of currency medium in circulation which comes from banks having a free go at introducing currency medium almost at will. Of course furthering their own and whoever fancy becoming extremely rich off interest and such. I don't think I would use the word force to describe this situation. For the most part I view the current situation to one of opportunity. A criminal situation absolutely but not so much at the fault of fiat money but one that is a result of opportunity for fraud with those who have been in charge. A situation that could be very much a part of the past considering the current direction of market fraud exposures and bank failures. I guess generally speaking, there is a lot of discontent at the reforms and global resolutions that are flowing like a river out of this situation that is traveling across the world but I am not educated enough to pose any kind of argument for or against most of what I read. To me it is all just a learning experience.

Fundamentally I can see some merit to a dollar not being regulated with gold/mineral but definitely not labour based in exchange, certainly not future labour which equals current/future debt. Ideally, I could see a dollar based on need being effective as long as it was accompanied by proper currency medium in circulation reduction policies like taxes (used properly). I couldn't even begin to surmise if this scenario would work or not, give me a few years...by then though my thoughts could have completely changed, giggle. It's just that in the back of my mind, whenever I consider a gold/silver/whatever resource backed dollar, I can see wars over whatever resource is required. Much like we have it today regarding fossil fuels.

Once I am finished absorbing this book I referenced I am going to read about the Austrian Theory. Perhaps then I can give you a more well rounded conversation about currency. I definitely consider the definition of currency to of the utmost importance.