30 Major Corporations Paid No Income Taxes in The Last Three Years

[dre]

No, I support the concept of a national central bank, and I know why it exists. I do not worry about what the central bank in Canada does from across the border.

The fractional reserve system is not controlled by any country. Its a global institution. And the main reason you support the system is because you dont understand how it works.

[bush_cheney2004]

The fractional reserve system is not controlled by any country. Its a global institution. And the main reason you support the system is because you dont understand how it works.

Yes...we are stupid and you are smart...you have it all figured out. You can even Google US banking history with aplomb. Congratulations. When you are done feeling superior, you will find that most nations have a central bank.

[maple_leafs182]

No, I support the concept of a national central bank, and I know why it exists. I do not worry about what the central bank in Canada does from across the border.

It doesn't matter if you don't worry about what the BoC does. Just because you support the concept of a central bank does not make the concept work.

Yes...we are stupid and you are smart...you have it all figured out. You can even Google US banking history with aplomb. Congratulations. When you are done feeling superior, you will find that most nations have a central bank.

What is your point here?

[bush_cheney2004]

It doesn't matter if you don't worry about what the BoC does. Just because you support the concept of a central bank does not make the concept work.

Works fine for me....have no complaints. What is your beef with a foreign central bank?

What is your point here?

My point here is that modern governments have chosen to manage monetary policy with central banks, most often with inflation targeting. People who think they have a better idea don't seem to be able to get the votes to change this approach. This gives them more time to watch YouTube videos or read The Creature from Jekyll Island.

[maple_leafs182]

Works fine for me....have no complaints. What is your beef with a foreign central bank?

I am against central banks in general.

My point here is that modern governments have chosen to manage monetary policy with central banks, most often with inflation targeting. People who think they have a better idea don't seem to be able to get the votes to change this approach. This gives them more time to watch YouTube videos or read The Creature from Jekyll Island.

People don't understand the monetary system, we aren't taught about the monetary system and how it works. Not once in high school did the mention anything about the Bank of Canada or the monetary system, I am in a course called Financial Systems at the University of Winnipeg, the chapter on money and central banks isn't part of the curriculum so our prof doesn't teach it.

I think if people were more educated on the subject then there would be more votes to change the monetary system.

[bush_cheney2004]

I am against central banks in general.

OK....but I hope you don't mind if other nations disagree.

People don't understand the monetary system, we aren't taught about the monetary system and how it works. Not once in high school did the mention anything about the Bank of Canada or the monetary system, I am in a course called Financial Systems at the University of Winnipeg, the chapter on money and central banks isn't part of the curriculum so our prof doesn't teach it.

That is most unfortunate...I specifically recall such basic things being taught in my 8th grade economics course.

I think if people were more educated on the subject then there would be more votes to change the monetary system.

Yes and no...the issues you are most likely concerned with were very well known and considered at the time of central bank legislation, but the benefits were judged to outweigh the disadvantages. Modern financial systems need some kind of framework within which to work.

[maple_leafs182]

OK....but I hope you don't mind if other nations disagree.

They can do as they please. It does seem like your country is one of the only countries that have people whom agree with me.

Yes and no...the issues you are most likely concerned with were very well known and considered at the time of central bank legislation, but the benefits were judged to outweigh the disadvantages. Modern financial systems need some kind of framework within which to work.

Modern financial systems are crumbling.

The BoC was created during the great depression, I think, and this is just speculation, but I think it was created for political reasons instead of what was in the best interest for the country. I like to think that the long term negative effects clearly out weigh the short term benefits.

Aren't you conservative, don't most conservatives believe in the free market?

Edited November 7, 2011 by maple_leafs182

[bush_cheney2004]

They can do as they please. It does seem like your country is one of the only countries that have people whom agree with me.

Yes, we have many people who share your point of view, but most of them are conspiracy nuts or anarchists.

Modern financial systems are crumbling.

Then let them crumble...something else will come along. What we have now is a lot better than slave labor.

The BoC was created during the great depression, I think, and this is just speculation, but I think it was created for political reasons instead of what was in the best interest for the country. I like to think that the long term negative effects clearly out weigh the short term benefits.

I don't know or care why the BoC was created. The history of the US Federal Reserve is well documented and taught in schools (social studies and economics). Your focus on what the Americans did in 1913 (pre-Depression) is your own affair, but it was not the first such system in the USA.

Aren't you conservative, don't most conservatives believe in the free market?

There is no such thing as true free market.

[maple_leafs182]

Yes, we have many people who share your point of view, but most of them are conspiracy nuts or anarchists.

Most are libertarians not anarchists.

Then let them crumble...something else will come along. What we have now is a lot better than slave labor.

I see what we have now as a form of slavery. It's sort of a hybrid between wage slavery and debt slavery

I don't know or care why the BoC was created. The history of the US Federal Reserve is well documented and taught in schools (social studies and economics). Your focus on what the Americans did in 1913 (pre-Depression) is your own affair, but it was not the first such system in the USA.

What happened to the last one, why did your country get rid of it? Was it because it was doing such an awesome job or because it was a corrupt institution used by a small elite for their benefit.

[bush_cheney2004]

Most are libertarians not anarchists.

It matters not...libertarians will always be on the outside looking in politically. That's why your guy Ron Paul has no chance.

I see what we have now as a form of slavery. It's sort of a hybrid between wage slavery and debt slavery

No, it's not slavery at all, and your association with it to actual slavery is ludicrous.

I can leave my job today and choose another with different compensation or choose not to work at all.

What happened to the last one, why did your country get rid of it? Was it because it was doing such an awesome job or because it was a corrupt institution used by a small elite for their benefit.

The Second Bank of the U.S.'s charter was permitted to expire for lots of reasons, including over extension and corruption. The War of 1812 and rapid land expansion put a lot of pressure on the nation's financial system. But it was clear by the beginning of the 20th century that the central bank concept was good, and just needed to be executed well.

I guess the point of all this is that America has faced these kind of issues several time in the past, and the world did not end. In fact, the country went on to become the biggest economic power in history.

[maple_leafs182]

It matters not...libertarians will always be on the outside looking in politically. That's why your guy Ron Paul has no chance.

Always...that is a strong statement.

No, it's not slavery at all, and your association with it to actual slavery is ludicrous.

I can leave my job today and choose another with different compensation or choose not to work at all.

It may not be the conventional form of slavery but it is how I perceive it.

The Second Bank of the U.S.'s charter was permitted to expire for lots of reasons, including over extension and corruption. The War of 1812 and rapid land expansion put a lot of pressure on the nation's financial system. But it was clear by the beginning of the 20th century that the central bank concept was good, and just needed to be executed well.

I guess the point of all this is that America has faced these kind of issues several time in the past, and the world did not end. In fact, the country went on to become the biggest economic power in history.

Nothing has changed, central banks will always be corrupt because the work to prop up established institutions. There is no freedom with a central bank.

[bush_cheney2004]

Always...that is a strong statement.

It's a strong reality.

It may not be the conventional form of slavery but it is how I perceive it.

Trying to usurp a historical term for your own personal agenda won't amount to much. Doing so trivializes those who actually experienced slavery.

Nothing has changed, central banks will always be corrupt because the work to prop up established institutions. There is no freedom with a central bank.

That's how they are suppose to work. The US didn't want to suffer the problems experienced during 80 years without a central banking system. It wasn't the wild wild west anymore. You are free to speculate with precious metal all you want.

[maple_leafs182]

It's a strong reality.

I disagree, if you look at current events, the tea party and OWS, it looks like the people want a libertarian candidate. I think a libertarian will emerge as a strong third party candidate, if not this election the next.

Trying to usurp a historical term for your own personal agenda won't amount to much. Doing so trivializes those who actually experienced slavery.

It isn't my own personal agenda, that is how I see the world, I know I am not the only one.

That's how they are suppose to work. The US didn't want to suffer the problems experienced during 80 years without a central banking system. It wasn't the wild wild west anymore. You are free to speculate with precious metal all you want.

Speculate with precious metals...the stock market is for speculators, this is why you see so much volatility.

[blueblood]

I disagree, if you look at current events, the tea party and OWS, it looks like the people want a libertarian candidate. I think a libertarian will emerge as a strong third party candidate, if not this election the next.

It isn't my own personal agenda, that is how I see the world, I know I am not the only one.

Speculate with precious metals...the stock market is for speculators, this is why you see so much volatility.

I think your blaming the institution of a central bank rather than the bozos who run it. A properly run central bank provides a good mechanism for growth and provides stability and direction in the marketplace, which benefits everyone. The problem we have is there hasn't been a central banker since volcker with the stones to raise interest rates when they need raising.

[bush_cheney2004]

I disagree, if you look at current events, the tea party and OWS, it looks like the people want a libertarian candidate. I think a libertarian will emerge as a strong third party candidate, if not this election the next.

The US frequently has Libertarian candidates, and they appear on the ballot as such. It's not a new idea at all. They will fail to garner enough campaign money, as is their conviction, which equals > loser.

It isn't my own personal agenda, that is how I see the world, I know I am not the only one.

That's what I said...it is personal to you.

[dre]

I think your blaming the institution of a central bank rather than the bozos who run it. A properly run central bank provides a good mechanism for growth and provides stability and direction in the marketplace, which benefits everyone. The problem we have is there hasn't been a central banker since volcker with the stones to raise interest rates when they need raising.

A properly run central bank provides

No the problem is not simply how its run. The problem is that once they decoupled the value of money from the value of real things it became possible for these private banks to literally print their own profits, and the moment that happened almost all the developed countries in the system began to bleed red ink.

If you spend a few minutes going over the numbers, its easy to see why. Banks expand the money supply by the ammount of the principle, but not the interest. That basically turns it into a pyramid scam that can only exist as long as there is a steady supply of new borrowers. Sorta like social security.

Lemme share with you a simple example.

Lets take a tiny economy where the money supply is $100 dollars all held by one person. Bob.

1. That person deposits his $100 dollars in a commercial bank.

2. That commercial bank puts 10 dollars in their account with the federal reserve and lends the remaining $90 as interest to Frank.

3. Frank buys a car with that money and the $90 dollars ends up in the bank account of the seller.

4. The sellers bank takes than 90 dollars puts $9 in their account at the central bank, and loans out 81 to Bill... at interest.

Lets look at the economy now. The bank has expanded the money supply by 71 dollars. Frank and Bill owe the central bank principle plus interest. Frank owes $96 dollars, bill owes about 86. Thats 182 dollars that they owe the banks. The problem is that there is only 171 dollars in the money supply that Frank and Bill can attempt to earn. ONE OF THEM IS MATHEMATICALLY GUARANTEED TO DEFAULT UNLESS: Peter comes along and takes out a loan. This will grow the money supply enough so that Bill and Frank can repay their loans, but there still isnt enough money in the money supply for Peter to pay back his back created credit unless the cycle of borrowing continues. And that is why the system virtually guarantees debt. Debt IS the money!

And in order to have a fresh supply of borrowers you need to have economic growth. You could calculate exactly how much growth you need for the system to remain stable... I wont do it though because this guy already made an example. Read it carefully.

In 1999 bank credit amounted to $557 billion, almost 95 percent of our money supply. Real interest (i.e. nominal interest minus inflation) on this bank credit was at least 5 percent, or $28 billion. But where is this interest to come from since banks create credit, but not the interest they charge on that credit? It can’t come from the approximately $32 billion in cash (GCM) that circulates in public hands. It can only come from more bank credit with more interest attached. But for all existing bank credit to be paid without anyone defaulting on their loans, the economy must expand by 2.9 percent ($28 billion of interest divided by the GDP, $953 billion). Since the average annual real GDP growth from 1960 to 1995 was only 2.3 percent, the economy is going to repeatedly stumble in its effort to keep up with the interest payments on all that bank credit. This is the root cause of what is known as the business cycle.

So unless the economy consistantly grows by 2.9 percent the result of this system will be PERPETUALLY INCREASING DEBT. And if you look at the record thats exactly what you will see. In the US the only time in the last 40 years that the national debt has not grown every single year was during the tech boom in the 90's.

[blueblood]

No the problem is not simply how its run. The problem is that once they decoupled the value of money from the value of real things it became possible for these private banks to literally print their own profits, and the moment that happened almost all the developed countries in the system began to bleed red ink.

If you spend a few minutes going over the numbers, its easy to see why. Banks expand the money supply by the ammount of the principle, but not the interest. That basically turns it into a pyramid scam that can only exist as long as there is a steady supply of new borrowers. Sorta like social security.

Lemme share with you a simple example.

Lets take a tiny economy where the money supply is $100 dollars all held by one person. Bob.

1. That person deposits his $100 dollars in a commercial bank.

2. That commercial bank puts 10 dollars in their account with the federal reserve and lends the remaining $90 as interest to Frank.

3. Frank buys a car with that money and the $90 dollars ends up in the bank account of the seller.

4. The sellers bank takes than 90 dollars puts $9 in their account at the central bank, and loans out 81 to Bill... at interest.

Lets look at the economy now. The bank has expanded the money supply by 71 dollars. Frank and Bill owe the central bank principle plus interest. Frank owes $96 dollars, bill owes about 86. Thats 182 dollars that they owe the banks. The problem is that there is only 171 dollars in the money supply that Frank and Bill can attempt to earn. ONE OF THEM IS MATHEMATICALLY GUARANTEED TO DEFAULT UNLESS: Peter comes along and takes out a loan. This will grow the money supply enough so that Bill and Frank can repay their loans, but there still isnt enough money in the money supply for Peter to pay back his back created credit unless the cycle of borrowing continues. And that is why the system virtually guarantees debt. Debt IS the money!

And in order to have a fresh supply of borrowers you need to have economic growth. You could calculate exactly how much growth you need for the system to remain stable... I wont do it though because this guy already made an example. Read it carefully.

So unless the economy consistantly grows by 2.9 percent the result of this system will be PERPETUALLY INCREASING DEBT. And if you look at the record thats exactly what you will see. In the US the only time in the last 40 years that the national debt has not grown every single year was during the tech boom in the 90's.

And where does that seed start, some bozo at the central bank decides to implement a cheap money policy and engages in open market operations and then frac. Lending takes care of the rest. That's bad.

If somebody deposits hard money from production in the bank, and the bank has to be careful who it lends out to because money is tight in the first place, that's good. You aren't taking into consideration that interest rates can rise and that most debtors do pay their bills. Also you fail to take into account that prices decrease when the supply of money is tight. Also you fail to take into account that many loans are taken out for the production of goods, not just the consumption.

If bob stuck 100 bucks in a commercial bank, wouldn't the bank print up 900 bucks if were doing frac reserve banking? If that's the case, there is enough money. Also you are assuming frank and bill work for free and their production means nothing.

The economy is far more complex than your little analogy, and that's why it has worked. Just needs competent people providing the environment for it to function.

[dre]

And where does that seed start, some bozo at the central bank decides to implement a cheap money policy and engages in open market operations and then frac. Lending takes care of the rest. That's bad.

If somebody deposits hard money from production in the bank, and the bank has to be careful who it lends out to because money is tight in the first place, that's good. You aren't taking into consideration that interest rates can rise and that most debtors do pay their bills. Also you fail to take into account that prices decrease when the supply of money is tight. Also you fail to take into account that many loans are taken out for the production of goods, not just the consumption.

If bob stuck 100 bucks in a commercial bank, wouldn't the bank print up 900 bucks if were doing frac reserve banking? If that's the case, there is enough money. Also you are assuming frank and bill work for free and their production means nothing.

The economy is far more complex than your little analogy, and that's why it has worked. Just needs competent people providing the environment for it to function.

No it hasnt really worked. The system has produced the EXACT result my analogy predicts. Perpetually increasing debt except during extremely strong periods of economic growth. It USED to work pretty well and youll see that debt levels were pretty stable up until the 1970's but that was simply because banks were required have gold reserves to back the creation of BCM.

Once this constraint that limited what banks could create was gone the moral hazard was there. Banks can now make as much profit as they can create new money, so they have created an AWFUL LOT, VERY QUICKLY. This is how we get these big bubbles into our economy.

A good example of this is iceland. Iceland privatized its 3 state banks in 2003. Within 5 years of privatization the banks had lent out 12 times icelands GDP, and the owners were bobbing around on 40 million dollar private lots, paid for quite simply by stealing from all holders of existing currency. The people of iceland lost almost $30 percent of their pension holdings as the banking system was looted.

If bob stuck 100 bucks in a commercial bank, wouldn't the bank print up 900 bucks if were doing frac reserve banking? If that's the case, there is enough money. Also you are assuming frank and bill work for free and their production means nothing.

No because the only way the bank can grow the money supply is by issuing more loans and adding new borrowers into the pyramid structure. It only creates that 900 dollars if theres someone willing to borrow it.

If bob stuck 100 bucks in a commercial bank, wouldn't the bank print up 900 bucks if were doing frac reserve banking?

NO. Because banks can only create money by lending it. Thats the whole point. Loans are capitalized by the borrowers promise to pay them back . In order for them to turn that 100 dollars into $900, $800 dollars in new debt has to be created, and the bank must find willing borrowers.

Edited November 8, 2011 by dre

[blueblood]

No it hasnt really worked. The system has produced the EXACT result my analogy predicts. Perpetually increasing debt except during extremely strong periods of economic growth. It USED to work pretty well and youll see that debt levels were pretty stable up until the 1970's but that was simply because banks were required have gold reserves to back the creation of ...

No because the only way the bank can grow the money supply is by issuing more loans and adding new borrowers into the pyramid structure. It only creates that 900 dollars if theres someone willing to borrow it.

NO. Because banks can only create money by lending it. Thats the whole point. Loans are capitalized by the borrowers promise to pay them back . In order for them to turn that 100 dollars into $900, $800 dollars in new debt has to be created, and the bank must find willing borrowers.

And that's why we have interest rate increases, to balance out all the lending going on and allow the bank to recapitalize for future loans. Problem is central bankers won't jack up the rates. Jacking up rates cuts down loans thus cutting down money created. Banks survived when interest rates were higher and will continue to do so.

That commercial bank has the potential to create 900 bucks however. Your analogy only works during low interest periods and completely ignores what went on during the early 80s.

[dre]

And that's why we have interest rate increases, to balance out all the lending going on and allow the bank to recapitalize for future loans. Problem is central bankers won't jack up the rates. Jacking up rates cuts down loans thus cutting down money created. Banks survived when interest rates were higher and will continue to do so.

That commercial bank has the potential to create 900 bucks however. Your analogy only works during low interest periods and completely ignores what went on during the early 80s.

No it doesnt. What I described to you is a permanent function of the system. Its how it works. Even if interest rates are high there can still never be enough money in the economy to pay back all the loans.

The debt spiral can only be stopped by massive economic growth.. Not interest rates. During the 80's when interest rates nearly hit 20%, we had some of the fastest debt accumulation ever.

[maple_leafs182]

I think your blaming the institution of a central bank rather than the bozos who run it. A properly run central bank provides a good mechanism for growth and provides stability and direction in the marketplace, which benefits everyone. The problem we have is there hasn't been a central banker since volcker with the stones to raise interest rates when they need raising.

If there was a free market economy, rates would go up on there own, banks would or should not loan money out at a time like this.

For the most part I agree with dre, fractional reserve banking is a problem, banks should not be able to create wealth out of nothing. If the banks were not able to create money out of nothing then the market would not be able to become so leveraged and we wouldn't have the problems we have now.

[dre]

If there was a free market economy, rates would go up on there own, banks would or should not loan money out at a time like this.

For the most part I agree with dre, fractional reserve banking is a problem, banks should not be able to create wealth out of nothing. If the banks were not able to create money out of nothing then the market would not be able to become so leveraged and we wouldn't have the problems we have now.

Thats why you need to make it so that banks do banking, and the people issue currency (or their government).

If usury is going to be charged on monetary expansion (as opposed to real loans) then the public should get that money NOT private banks, because its the public and the holders of existing dollars that backstop that new money creation.

[maple_leafs182]

Thats why you need to make it so that banks do banking, and the people issue currency (or their government).

If usury is going to be charged on monetary expansion (as opposed to real loans) then the public should get that money NOT private banks, because its the public and the holders of existing dollars that backstop that new money creation.

That is why I am against fractional reserve banking. If you have the banks loaning out money that was deposited in the bank, new money wouldn't be created.

[blueblood]

No it doesnt. What I described to you is a permanent function of the system. Its how it works. Even if interest rates are high there can still never be enough money in the economy to pay back all the loans.

The debt spiral can only be stopped by massive economic growth.. Not interest rates. During the 80's when interest rates nearly hit 20%, we had some of the fastest debt accumulation ever.

No, it's how you think it works. There are people out there who have no debt, it is possible. As for government, they have in perpetuity to pay it off. The problem is when the debt becomes unmanageable to the point when interest payments take a big percentage of gov't spending.

The interest rates rising cuts off the borrowing and provides sound capital for frac. Banking to loan out in the future when there is too much money in savings or to bondholders the bank doesn't want to pay interest on. As a result over the long run there is economic growth. It's a two way street.

Yours is a function of low interest rates and borrowing over the past 20 years. Regains debt was to obliterate the soviet union. Mission accomplished. The high interest rates helped curb 70s stagflation - buckleys tastes bad.

[maple_leafs182]

No, it's how you think it works. There are people out there who have no debt, it is possible. As for government, they have in perpetuity to pay it off. The problem is when the debt becomes unmanageable to the point when interest payments take a big percentage of gov't spending.

The interest rates rising cuts off the borrowing and provides sound capital for frac. Banking to loan out in the future when there is too much money in savings or to bondholders the bank doesn't want to pay interest on. As a result over the long run there is economic growth. It's a two way street.

Yours is a function of low interest rates and borrowing over the past 20 years. Regains debt was to obliterate the soviet union. Mission accomplished. The high interest rates helped curb 70s stagflation - buckleys tastes bad.

He is right. He is not saying it is impossible for an individual to be debt free, but it is impossible for everyone to be debt free since there isn't enough money in existence to pay off the amount of debt in existence.