dre Posted November 8, 2011 Report Share Posted November 8, 2011 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. Right. That stops private bankings from stealing wealth from the government and holders of existing dollars. You still need someone to make sure that the right ammount of tokens exist in relation to the ammount of goods and services in the marketplace. A computer program could probably do that, but somebody still has to collect all the data, and some human will still have keys to the room that computer is in. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted November 8, 2011 Report Share Posted November 8, 2011 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. No, it's how you think it works. There are people out there who have no debt, it is possible. Im not sure how you could reply to my post with that... 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. It might be a two way street, but the lane going one way a inch wide and the lane going the other way is 5 miles wide. There IS almost no "sound money". 95% of the money supply is bank created credit. Only 5% actually came from the treasury. And regardless of where interest rates are setting its mathematically impossible for all those loans to be repaid because unless the econonomy is growing at 3% plus then the dollars to do so are simply not in existance. No, it's how you think it works. No sorry. It IS how it works. The system is pretty well documented, and you can contact the central bank and theyll probably be glad to explain it to you. "When you or I write a check there must be sufficient funds in out account to cover the check, but when the Federal Reserve writes a check there is no bank deposit on which that check is drawn. When the Federal Reserve writes a check, it is creating money." — Putting it simply, Boston Federal Reserve Bank Its pretty simple if you think about it. Since 95% of all money was created by this hanfull of private corporations in the form of bank credit, each time a loan is payed back the money supply shrinks. And since the banker took a bunch of the money for himself as usury only the principle ever entered the money supply it is impossible for all borrowers to repay their loans. Heres a really simple example... http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/the-new-economy/how-banks-make-money In that example the bank has grown the money supply by 171 dollars. But the total ammount of debt has grown by 171 + interest. Somebody has to default unless theres always new borrowers! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 8, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 8, 2011 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.OWS is not libertarian.You need to look at the cultural spectrum. On the x-axis you plot a spectrum from individualism to solidarity and on the y-axis you plot stratification from egalitarianism to hierarchy. In this way, you can plot people's cultural perspectives and most likely political leanings. Libertarians would be individualist-egalitarians, while I would argue that OWSers would be solidarist-egalitarians. They share the same end of the regulatory axis (egalitarianism to hierarchism), but are on opposite ends of the integration axis. What's interesting about the relationship between the Tea Party and OWS is that OWS could never happen or gain support without the existence of the Tea Party. At least that's what I would argue and for this reason. The 1980s brought about the rise of neo-conservatism (liberalism depending on who you ask), which could be plotted as individualist-hierarchism. It's impossible for there to be broad acceptance of a polar opposite because they share nothing. You could not move from the individualist-hierarchism (neocon) quadrant into the solidarist-egalitraian quadrant (OWS). Enter Tea Party. The Tea Party shares individualism with the neocons by inhabiting the individualist-egalitarianism quadrant. As this nudges the political dialogue into the realm of egalitarianism, it creates the space for OWS to pull the conversation over to solidarism while sharing Tea Party's space on the egalitarian side. In other words, the Tea Party created the cultural space for OWS to exist, although they disagree on the integration scale (TP being individualist and OWS being solidarist). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted November 8, 2011 Report Share Posted November 8, 2011 Im not sure how you could reply to my post with that... It might be a two way street, but the lane going one way a inch wide and the lane going the other way is 5 miles wide. There IS almost no "sound money". 95% of the money supply is bank created credit. Only 5% actually came from the treasury. And regardless of where interest rates are setting its mathematically impossible for all those loans to be repaid because unless the econonomy is growing at 3% plus then the dollars to do so are simply not in existance. No sorry. It IS how it works. The system is pretty well documented, and you can contact the central bank and theyll probably be glad to explain it to you. Its pretty simple if you think about it. Since 95% of all money was created by this hanfull of private corporations in the form of bank credit, each time a loan is payed back the money supply shrinks. And since the banker took a bunch of the money for himself as usury only the principle ever entered the money supply it is impossible for all borrowers to repay their loans. Somebody has to default unless theres always new borrowers! Again your not taking into account higher interest rates which slash money creation and boost bank reserves. Also to remember that with higher interest payments, payments to banks are larger. If the fed isn't printing money with low rates, prices eventually go down when the new loans are taken out down the road. According to this, USA annual GDP growth surpasses your magical number and this is averaged all through the years of the fed/frac. Banking My link High interest rates in the 80s are a benefit and didn't put your magic number in doubt. There's enough money, there needs to be a period of savings, and that will lead to growth as it did in 1920-21, fed and all. The only bad cycle is the fed printing money and the banks frac. Lending it out instead of consumers saving and paying off debt like they should. With frac. Banking, an increase of savings increases the banks reserves for future lending without devaluing the currency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted November 8, 2011 Report Share Posted November 8, 2011 (edited) Again your not taking into account higher interest rates which slash money creation and boost bank reserves. Also to remember that with higher interest payments, payments to banks are larger. If the fed isn't printing money with low rates, prices eventually go down when the new loans are taken out down the road. According to this, USA annual GDP growth surpasses your magical number and this is averaged all through the years of the fed/frac. Banking My link High interest rates in the 80s are a benefit and didn't put your magic number in doubt. There's enough money, there needs to be a period of savings, and that will lead to growth as it did in 1920-21, fed and all. The only bad cycle is the fed printing money and the banks frac. Lending it out instead of consumers saving and paying off debt like they should. With frac. Banking, an increase of savings increases the banks reserves for future lending without devaluing the currency. Im not going to keep explaining the same basic concept over and over again. Everything Iv told you is absolutely true, and the information is available directly from the federal reserve system if you dont want to take my word for it. Heres a good primer if youre interested. It explains whey theres always more debt in the system than there ever is dollars to pay that debt off, and why it can only stay solvent in a civilization thats enjoying strong and consistant growth. According to this, USA annual GDP growth surpasses your magical number and this is averaged all through the years of the fed/frac. Thats not a magic number. I showed you exactly where it came from. Edited November 8, 2011 by dre Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted November 8, 2011 Report Share Posted November 8, 2011 Heres the next couple of chapters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maple_leafs182 Posted November 8, 2011 Report Share Posted November 8, 2011 (edited) OWS is not libertarian. You need to look at the cultural spectrum. On the x-axis you plot a spectrum from individualism to solidarity and on the y-axis you plot stratification from egalitarianism to hierarchy. In this way, you can plot people's cultural perspectives and most likely political leanings. Libertarians would be individualist-egalitarians, while I would argue that OWSers would be solidarist-egalitarians. They share the same end of the regulatory axis (egalitarianism to hierarchism), but are on opposite ends of the integration axis. What's interesting about the relationship between the Tea Party and OWS is that OWS could never happen or gain support without the existence of the Tea Party. At least that's what I would argue and for this reason. The 1980s brought about the rise of neo-conservatism (liberalism depending on who you ask), which could be plotted as individualist-hierarchism. It's impossible for there to be broad acceptance of a polar opposite because they share nothing. You could not move from the individualist-hierarchism (neocon) quadrant into the solidarist-egalitraian quadrant (OWS). Enter Tea Party. The Tea Party shares individualism with the neocons by inhabiting the individualist-egalitarianism quadrant. As this nudges the political dialogue into the realm of egalitarianism, it creates the space for OWS to pull the conversation over to solidarism while sharing Tea Party's space on the egalitarian side. In other words, the Tea Party created the cultural space for OWS to exist, although they disagree on the integration scale (TP being individualist and OWS being solidarist). I always saw the chart more as Liberal and conservative on the X-axis and Totalitarianism and anarchism on the Y-axis. But yours sees past the politics of it, I like it. Just throwing this out there, OWS actually prefers to be called Occupy since it isn't just on Wall Street, there is occupy D.C, occupy central banks and others. I was talking to some of them, there main concerns is as I have come to understand it is they are worried about the concentration of wealth and power, they don't want money to affect the political process and a lot of them are against bailing out the banks. They do have different solutions but there are a lot of libertarians in the mix Edited November 8, 2011 by maple_leafs182 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maple_leafs182 Posted November 8, 2011 Report Share Posted November 8, 2011 Right. That stops private bankings from stealing wealth from the government and holders of existing dollars. You still need someone to make sure that the right ammount of tokens exist in relation to the ammount of goods and services in the marketplace. A computer program could probably do that, but somebody still has to collect all the data, and some human will still have keys to the room that computer is in. I really don't think you do need that. If you really do want government controlled money, competition should be legal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted November 8, 2011 Report Share Posted November 8, 2011 I really don't think you do need that. If you really do want government controlled money, competition should be legal. I dont see any way around that at all. Im happy to hear your ideas though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPCFTW Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 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. So what? Household/personal debt is not the reason the economy is messed up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPCFTW Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 Somebody has to default unless theres always new borrowers! Good thing there is! All of this has nothing to do with public debt (the problem with the current economy) and everything to do with personal debt. And none of it matters because central banks can reduce money supply anyways. You're just describing borrowing from peter to pay back john. It's not a new concept. In your example, the guy can just roll over his debt by borrowing from another bank. Wow no default! Nice try deflecting from the actual problem (government borrowing to pay for socialist ideals and other voter pandering). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 ....Nice try deflecting from the actual problem (government borrowing to pay for socialist ideals and other voter pandering). Good catch...you know what they say: "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 Good thing there is! All of this has nothing to do with public debt (the problem with the current economy) and everything to do with personal debt. And none of it matters because central banks can reduce money supply anyways. You're just describing borrowing from peter to pay back john. It's not a new concept. In your example, the guy can just roll over his debt by borrowing from another bank. Wow no default! Nice try deflecting from the actual problem (government borrowing to pay for socialist ideals and other voter pandering). Personal debt is still a big problem, but he goes about it all wrong. It was socialist ideals that created the environment for this personal debt debacle to begin with. Normally banks wouldn't follow suit, but the regulations made it so the banks had nothing to lose. I've been trying to say that the banks/fed can jack up the rates, reduce money supply and over time prices would fall. But we have buffoons in charge of setting this rates and now we have a problem. The gov't is essentially outsourcing socialism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 Nice try deflecting from the actual problem (government borrowing to pay for socialist ideals and other voter pandering). No sorry. Government gets money through the same system, and the reason for all the public debt is that fiat/fractional banking makes it SOOOOOO damn easy to increase the money supply. Why dont you look at that public debt before the implementation of fiat fractional banking in 1971. Its almost a completely flat line. Look at what happens directly after. Its not "borrowing" per say, its economic expansion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 Personal debt is still a big problem, but he goes about it all wrong. It was socialist ideals that created the environment for this personal debt debacle to begin with. Normally banks wouldn't follow suit, but the regulations made it so the banks had nothing to lose. I've been trying to say that the banks/fed can jack up the rates, reduce money supply and over time prices would fall. But we have buffoons in charge of setting this rates and now we have a problem. The gov't is essentially outsourcing socialism. But we have buffoons in charge of setting this rates and now we have a problem. The gov't is essentially outsourcing socialism. Those "buffoons" are private federal reserve bankers, and the reason they create so much easy money is simply because the system makes it very profitable to do so. If you could legal create money from nothing, and lend it out at usury would you? You bet you would. Yould lend it out as fast as you possibly can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 (edited) OWS is not libertarian. You need to look at the cultural spectrum. On the x-axis you plot a spectrum from individualism to solidarity and on the y-axis you plot stratification from egalitarianism to hierarchy. In this way, you can plot people's cultural perspectives and most likely political leanings. Libertarians would be individualist-egalitarians, while I would argue that OWSers would be solidarist-egalitarians. They share the same end of the regulatory axis (egalitarianism to hierarchism), but are on opposite ends of the integration axis. What's interesting about the relationship between the Tea Party and OWS is that OWS could never happen or gain support without the existence of the Tea Party. At least that's what I would argue and for this reason. The 1980s brought about the rise of neo-conservatism (liberalism depending on who you ask), which could be plotted as individualist-hierarchism. It's impossible for there to be broad acceptance of a polar opposite because they share nothing. You could not move from the individualist-hierarchism (neocon) quadrant into the solidarist-egalitraian quadrant (OWS). Enter Tea Party. The Tea Party shares individualism with the neocons by inhabiting the individualist-egalitarianism quadrant. As this nudges the political dialogue into the realm of egalitarianism, it creates the space for OWS to pull the conversation over to solidarism while sharing Tea Party's space on the egalitarian side. In other words, the Tea Party created the cultural space for OWS to exist, although they disagree on the integration scale (TP being individualist and OWS being solidarist). I'm not so sure that's accurate. Social libertarianism exists. The political compass here http://www.politicalcompass.org/index has a 'libertarian vs authoritarian' axis, that I think is more accurate. There is a strong 'individualist' element of OCCUPY. They act on the democratic consensus of individuals, not by electing hierarchical authority. IE, they don't give their vote to anyone else, but also have a commitment to consensual action. Edited November 9, 2011 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 9, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 I'm not so sure that's accurate. Social libertarianism exists. The political compass here http://www.politicalcompass.org/index has a 'libertarian vs authoritarian' axis, that I think is more accurate. There is a strong 'individualist' element of OCCUPY. They act on the democratic consensus of individuals, not by electing hierarchical authority. IE, they don't give their vote to anyone else, but also have a commitment to consensual action. You're mixing up the cultural paradigms. I'm not talking about political constructs. What I'm saying is that there needed to be a cultural shift for Occupy to be realized. So, the political compass is a different construct. The compass that I'm talking about plots individualism-communitarianism (or collectivism, whatever you want to call it) on one axis and hierarchy-egalitarianism on the opposite axis. One is about social integration (individual-communitarianism), while the other is about social regulation and the source of rules and norms. For the neo-conservative culture that we entered into in the 80s, they would be plotted in the hemisphere bound by individual/hierarchy. It's not possible for occupy to come about in that culture because it has no shared ideals. Occupy would be plotted in the quadrant bound by communitarianism-egalitarianism. The intermediary culture that needed to arise was what brought about the Tea Party. That culture would be plotted in the quadrant bound by individualism-egalitarianism. I'm suggesting that you can only shift the culture from one axis at a time. So, we have a culture conducive to neo-conservatism (I-H). The Tea Party can arise because the culture only needs to shift one step from hiearchy to egalitarianism (I-E). They share individualism. Now that we've brought egalitarianism into the culture, the Occupy movement can arise from its shared egalitarian sentiment by shifting focus from individual to community (C-E). What cannot happen is a shift from I-H directly to C-E because those cultures are constantly in conflict. They're fundamentally incompatible. It's worth noting that there is a fourth possible zone of communitarianism-hiearchy. It will be interesting to see if something new in the next decade or so arises from that cultural locale. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 9, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 (edited) I'm not sure that this is clear. The libertarian-authoritarian axis on the political compass is actually related to the hierarchy-egalitarianism axis in the cultural paradigm. Libertarianism is egalitarian and authoritarian is hierarchy. If you want to look at it that way. Edited November 9, 2011 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 Those "buffoons" are private federal reserve bankers, and the reason they create so much easy money is simply because the system makes it very profitable to do so. If you could legal create money from nothing, and lend it out at usury would you? You bet you would. Yould lend it out as fast as you possibly can. Not if it's going to have zero value like in Zimbabwe. ThEre has to be people creating real wealth to back that money before I'd lend it out. The problem is artificially low interest rates are sending signals to people to borrow more money on things other an production causing a misallocation of capital. Had rates been higher, we wouldn't have that and savings would grow and we'd have frac. Lending of sound money instead of the fed pulling money out of their ass. By raising rates, it creates scarcity of money which in turn causes prices to fall as there isn't enough money chasing the value of goods/services. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maple_leafs182 Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 (edited) So what? Household/personal debt is not the reason the economy is messed up. You're missing the point, the current monetary paradigm is fundamentally flawed. Edited November 9, 2011 by maple_leafs182 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 9, 2011 Report Share Posted November 9, 2011 You're missing the point, the current monetary paradigm is fundamentally flawed. It only has to work until I'm dead! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maple_leafs182 Posted November 10, 2011 Report Share Posted November 10, 2011 It only has to work until I'm dead! lol, how long you planning on living? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted November 10, 2011 Report Share Posted November 10, 2011 Not if it's going to have zero value like in Zimbabwe. ThEre has to be people creating real wealth to back that money before I'd lend it out. The problem is artificially low interest rates are sending signals to people to borrow more money on things other an production causing a misallocation of capital. Had rates been higher, we wouldn't have that and savings would grow and we'd have frac. Lending of sound money instead of the fed pulling money out of their ass. By raising rates, it creates scarcity of money which in turn causes prices to fall as there isn't enough money chasing the value of goods/services. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted November 10, 2011 Report Share Posted November 10, 2011 They laughed at schiff as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 10, 2011 Report Share Posted November 10, 2011 lol, how long you planning on living? 'Til about 2035 or so...I want to go out like Edward G. Robinson in Soylent Green: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.