tomozope:It's true indivually you can get out of debt but collectively we cannot. The only way for you to pay off your personal loans is to capture somebody else's loaned principle so you can pay your interest. All you've done there is roll the debt over onto someone else.
That is precisely what I wrote here:
tomozope:Even if he takes out another loan he can still get out of debt so the debt cycle just continues over and over again I don't see it necessarily destroying society -technically wages are debts yet mankind is better off with them.
My point being that the whole economy is based on loans and debts and being that this is one of it's essential features, it cannot do much harm.
Indeed, given an evenly rotating economy, the only thing that matters would be interest and the loan/debt relationship.
sthomper: "The government claims to hold about 250 million oz of gold...." the above was stated in a mises blog thread some time ago. i dont know if it is true or not. there may be as much gold in the hands of people as well - in other forms than coin or bullion. i believe a dime weighs about 2.5 grams. the dime seems to me a usable practical coin. i am able to read it 250 million ounces of gold could yield about 3 billion 2.5 gram gold coins. i gues they could be traded electronically..like a lot of things now. but there if you needed them.
"The government claims to hold about 250 million oz of gold...."
the above was stated in a mises blog thread some time ago. i dont know if it is true or not. there may be as much gold in the hands of people as well - in other forms than coin or bullion.
i believe a dime weighs about 2.5 grams. the dime seems to me a usable practical coin. i am able to read it
250 million ounces of gold could yield about 3 billion 2.5 gram gold coins.
i gues they could be traded electronically..like a lot of things now. but there if you needed them.
I don't know what the exact current figure is but I am aware of this video about a federal reserve balance sheet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MILF-9GeMDQ&feature=player_embedded
And here is a link to federal reserve data released every Thursday:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/
a lot of 'i dont knows' it seems
i was responding to an earlier statement about an insufficient quantity of gold needed to operate a vast complex economy that exists today.
as for the 250 million ounces claim...right...i dont know if that is all federal reserve controlled or managed according to congressional/us treasury dictate or if it just sits around and looks pretty. or why gold would even figure into any federal reserve activities - if the pumping mechanism that i read about is true....the gold would seem to have an almost nonexistent effect on money and credit inflation.
the link you posted mentioned, if true, states there are 800 billion or so of federal reserve assets. i dont have the financial background to understand that information.
in an earlier discussion with a poster named jimmy at mises forums i was told this
" So normally if the Fed increases the monetary base (not typically notes and coins but more commonly by increasing the total quantity of reserves in the system held on account with the Fed itself) by 100 billion you might expect an actual expansion of the overall money supply of maybe 1 trillion (in a very simple example)."
found here http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/7051.aspx
if the federal reserve actually conjured up 800 billion or so to get commercial bank assets...maybe an $8 trillion or so money/credit supply would make sense. that is what i was told.
fakename wrote:
undoubtedly the use of math helps predict human action but it can only be imperfect. Human action cannot be predicted regularly due to changes in preferences and though preferences can be linked to quantities (caloric intake, etc.) it is not possible to extrapolate perfectly from even this relationship (with the rise of ascetes being a counterexample).
_____________________________________________________________
Yes, agreed, my simple model is imperfect and I show no variables for the human interaction. Instead, my model quantifies (imperfectly) the expectations/requirements of human interaction.
And from a purely theoretical view, this anti-interest theory proves far too much for it's own good. If the problem of interest is that it grows to an extent where it can never be repaid, then why do people and businesses profit?
The problem is a debt based monetary system - it's a scam. How can we or the government, have debt to private bankers, when it is solely us that backs up the new money with our collateral and IOU?
Cheers,
Larry
Ok; we have heard enough of your 'critiques'; your reasonable ones mixed up with you ridonculous ones.
what exactly is your positive program? what are you 'for' ?
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
sthomper: a lot of 'i dont knows' it seems i was responding to an earlier statement about an insufficient quantity of gold needed to operate a vast complex economy that exists today.
There is no such thing as there not being enough gold or silver or anything. This argument comes from economic folly that every man/women and child needs X units of gold silver or platinum. But they cannot decide what X is or how much X is. They don't understand that
A) If you have 10 X units of gold and 20 people. Then in general everyone has .5 X units of gold.
B) If you have 40 X units of gold and 20 people than everyone has 2 X units of gold.
The people in scenario A are just as wealthy as the people in Scenario B. Group B is not somehow 4 times wealthier than group A. They have just rationed off differently what is available.
If your incapable of understanding this you may as well not be posting on this forum as you only make yourself look foolish.
Surprisingly monetary cranks understand the concept of inflation but don't understand that the quantity of gold available for a gold standard to operate isn't relevant.
DrKrbyLuv: undoubtedly the use of math helps predict human action but it can only be imperfect. Human action cannot be predicted regularly due to changes in preferences and though preferences can be linked to quantities (caloric intake, etc.) it is not possible to extrapolate perfectly from even this relationship (with the rise of ascetes being a counterexample). _____________________________________________________________ Yes, agreed, my simple model is imperfect and I show no variables for the human interaction. Instead, my model quantifies (imperfectly) the expectations/requirements of human interaction.
False. Math cannot predict human action. It can only help guess human action. The closest word you could get to predict is "Guestimate". Beyond guestimation math will do nothing. It cannot tell the future.
DrKrbyLuv: fakename wrote: And from a purely theoretical view, this anti-interest theory proves far too much for it's own good. If the problem of interest is that it grows to an extent where it can never be repaid, then why do people and businesses profit? _____________________________________________________________ The problem is a debt based monetary system - it's a scam. How can we or the government, have debt to private bankers, when it is solely us that backs up the new money with our collateral and IOU?
FRB is a scam not because it's "Debt based" as you called it. It's a scam because it's fraudulent and causes banks to lend irresponsibly and to handle depositors money irresponsibly behind depositors backs. If banks could just lend new money into existence they would never fail. Unfortunately for you and your argument banks do fail. See here
Any how I don't want to dilute nirgaham's question. If you could answer the following.
nirgahamUK:what exactly is your positive program? what are you 'for' ?
Filc wrote:
Your numbers are arbitrary.
Hello Flic,.....Yes, my inputs are arbitrary. I'm sorry if I implied that they were fact. I was looking for the formulas and modeling that could help define where we are at, and what is coming our way. The variables may be argued but the mathematical logic is the bigger question. For example, We can calculate, with a high degree of certainty, how interest and principal debt will impact our future economy.
___________________________
They use mathematical models to guess human action. They predict nothing as they are speculating. It's a gamble and if their speculation is a good one than they may profit. No amount of mathematical prediction can predict or manipulate human action. Mathematical predictions couldn't have saved the horse and buggy industry. Any one who believes it will save their industry is also in error.ack to my previous point. They think that human behavior can be modeled and predicted via math. It's a huge fallacy.
So I'll state it again. When your mathematical models can accurately predict human behavior come let me know. I'll want to know which stocks to invest in since you will some how have an eye into the future.
We can go at this from a couple of ways. First, we have no idea how people will behave. But we can calculate the degree that their actions have impact on the economy. For example, how much debt will be dropped (in the form of taxes, inflation and general theft.
filc:There is no such thing as there not being enough gold or silver or anything.
Would 200 pounds of gold be enough to run an economy?
How small of a gold/silver/anything of a coin are you proposing?
i posted this earlier...if true, the coinage issue doesnt seem to be a problem.
sthomper:"The government claims to hold about 250 million oz of gold...."
Gold hasn't had any relation debt, money, or anything else with money for over 70 years. Gold was de-monetized in 1933/34. You can't trade gold electronically. It's a physical substance that can only be traded via transportation. The banks like to push the whole digital gold thing, but its a lie. It's like electronically trading a sandwhich, it just can't be done with todays technology, and probably never will be able to be done.
More importantly though, even if you did monetize all that gold it still wouldn't put a dent in the $57 trillion dollar interest bearing debt that is looming over our nation.
tomozope: Would 200 pounds of gold be enough to run an economy?
It sure would be, and whatever other additional units of exchange consumers desired to use. If gold was truly that limited it's unlikely it would be a unit of exchange though if people wanted it they may decide to mint coins with .001% of gold and the rest silver of some other more common metal. Thanks for evading my question though. Your the one who believes we need a fixed amount.
tomozope:How small of a gold/silver/anything of a coin are you proposing?
My point is that it doesn't matter how much physical quantity there is in existence. So long as the unit of exchange does not change drastically over a short period of time and cause a business cycle.
tomozope:Gold hasn't had any relation debt, money, or anything else with money for over 70 years. Gold was de-monetized in 1933/34. You can't trade gold electronically. It's a physical substance that can only be traded via transportation. The banks like to push the whole digital gold thing, but its a lie. It's like electronically trading a sandwhich, it just can't be done with todays technology, and probably never will be able to be done.
I can electronically transport just about everything else. I havn't looked but I bet there is something made of gold on Amazon Fresh.
Doing something electronically is no different then calling someone on the phone or doing it yourself. The fact that a request is made electronically does not mean that some mysticism is involved.
it's like saying 200 pounds of gold is enough to run an economy just so long as you suppliment it with as much of something else as needed.
It's like saying 2 horses are enough for a 50 horse race just so long as we add 48 jackasses and call them horses.
tomozope: filc:There is no such thing as there not being enough gold or silver or anything. Would 200 pounds of gold be enough to run an economy? How small of a gold/silver/anything of a coin are you proposing?
Since you decided to ignore my post I'll repost it.
filc:A) If you have 10 X units of gold and 20 people. Then in general everyone has .5 X units of gold. B) If you have 40 X units of gold and 20 people than everyone has 2 X units of gold. The people in scenario A are just as wealthy as the people in Scenario B. Group B is not somehow 4 times wealthier than group A. They have just rationed off differently what is available. If your incapable of understanding this you may as well not be posting on this forum as you only make yourself look foolish.
"Gold hasn't had any relation debt, money, or anything else with money for over 70 years. Gold was de-monetized in 1933/34. You can't trade gold electronically. "
i think most people posting here know this. the topic has stryed somewhat.
i have done something called a wire transfer at a bank.
some minutes after it took place a person 2000 miles away claimed to have money and they didnt eat it - making it unsandwichable.
a claim for gold could be electronically transferred or sent like a title. it works for electrons and it probobly would work (for some) when exchanging goods for title to gold in vault.
you could use coins as much as you like.
I didn't ignore your post. Look one posting up and read about the horse race.
tomozope: it's like saying 200 pounds of gold is enough to run an economy just so long as you suppliment it with as much of something else as needed. It's like saying 2 horses are enough for a 50 horse race just so long as we add 48 jackasses and call them horses.
filc:If your incapable of understanding this you may as well not be posting on this forum as you only make yourself look foolish.
There you have it folks.
FYI Tom, your post is non-sequitur.
filc:I can electronically transport just about everything else.
Can you electronically transfer an automobile or does that have to be transfered over a transporation system?
If just about anything can be electronically transfered then why do I drive to work? Why don't I just electronically transfer myself? I really need to get a job in the bahamas. Go watch some more star trek. I think reality is to much for you to handle.
tomozope:Why don't I just electronically transfer myself? I really need to get a job in the bahamas.
Unbelievable. This is coming from a guy making a post on the internet...
does your 'paycheck' get sent electronically?
does the information here get sent electronically?
i thought the point was that title to gold or silver or commodity could be sent electronically?
should a new thread on this issue be started?
sthomper:does your 'payceck' get sent electronically?
Just the numbers do, but my check still arives via the postal system.
how many wire transfers or direct deposits take pale with in the banking system?
again, i thougt is was title to gold, or in the case we have, various types of clearing and settling functions within the banks that allow for claims to 'cash' often many miles away.
isnt that reality?
filc: tomozope:Why don't I just electronically transfer myself? I really need to get a job in the bahamas. Unbelievable. This is coming from a guy making a post on the internet...
Ok that article clearly states that the people do not actually meet at a said location, they just use their computer to access work from at home, coffee shops ect.....Again the pyhsical object is not transfered.
You can't wire/email/photocopy/ any physical objects. Anything that is consists of any known chemical substance can only be moved via transportation.
The only think I'm thinking now is that maybe you should try reading this magazine because it's probably more at your level of thinking. I'm sure you'll find lots of people to communicate with who will agree with everything you say.
sthomper:how many wire transfers or direct deposits take pale with in the banking system?
Millions upon millions every day.
sthomper: again, i thougt is was title to gold, or in the case we have, various types of clearing and settling functions within the banks that allow for claims to 'cash' often many miles away. isnt that reality?
The reality is banks do not deal in/with gold anymore. It was demonetized over 70 years ago. If you want to get some cash out of your bank you would have to go there and draw down on your checking account and purchase those bills and in order for any of those numbers to exsist somebody, somewhere in the system had to go into debt.
tomozope:The reality is banks do not deal in/with gold anymore. It was demonetized over 70 years ago. If you want to get some cash out of your bank you would have to go there and draw down on your checking account and purchase those bills and in order for any of those numbers to exsist somebody, somewhere in the system had to go into debt.
If you actually did some research you would know that banks actually do hold assets, the fed included. Many of them have been over-invested in mortgages and real estate and thats just one puzzle peace of our previous bust.
If banks could just monetize all their obligations they would not fail. We would also have had much stronger inflation than we have been seeing.
How do you explain this list I have posted for you twice now?
tomozope:The only think I'm thinking now is that maybe you should try reading this magazine because it's probably more at your level of thinking. I'm sure you'll find lots of people to communicate with who will agree with everything you say.
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume I've read a bit more about the subject than you. Seeing as you cannot even accurately define the word "Economics".
filc:Seeing as you cannot even accurately define the word "Economics".
I'm not interested in talking about economics, I'm interested in talking about how our monetary system works. But here is the definition of economics for you.
(used with a singular verb) the science that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services, or the material welfare of humankind.
or would you preffer the financial dictionary definition?
The study of how people use their limited resources in an attempt to satisfy unlimited wants.
filc: If you actually did some research you would know that banks actually do hold assets, the fed included. Many of them have been over-invested in mortgages and real estate and thats just one puzzle peace of our previous bust.
Banks do hold assests, as a matter of fact the banking system has a mortgage on all the property in the USA.
filc:If banks could just monetize all their obligations they would not fail. We would also have had much stronger inflation than we have been seeing.
Banks do monetize all their obligations, but as a debt to the people and an asset to the banking system. The banks do not have to honor their obligations. Banks fail because SOME banks (not all) have to write off their "losses" (which they don't have because they never actually loan anything) on their books. When people default on their loans certain banks have to deduct that loss off their income, when those losses exceed their income they are insolvent and out of business. I can assure you this is no law, just a rule within the banking system, and from everything I can tell this rule does not apply to the very top banks. This rule only exsists for the big banks to be able to wipe out all their competition by shutting down the money supply.
Monetization as a wealth is a really good thing, and is needed. That kind of inflation is good because if we could bring that kind of money into circulation it could be used to destroy both principle and interest reducing the total interest bearing indebitness.
Monetization as a debt is the poision that is ruining our country. All these businesses didn't go out of business because they had to much money, nor did the people quit paying their mortgages because they had too much money. Isn't it becoming obvious that we can't borrow ourselves out of debt?
sthomper wrote:
_________________________
I think that at best, the U.S. has 3,100 metric tonnes of gold. This is far short of the 8,100 metric tonnes that the government reports to the World Gold Council - http://www.research.gold.org
The discrepancy shows up in a USGS report. "The United States Geological Survey [USGS] publishes monthly Mineral Industry Surveys designed to provide a macro-import/export-overview of the U.S. precious metals [gold] industry. Over the course of 2007 / 2008 more than 5,000 metric tonnes of "Gold Compounds" have been exported from the United States of America representing more than 62 % of reported sovereign U.S. gold reserves." The sovereign U.S. gold reserve has not been independently audited since the 1950's during the Eisenhower Administration. GATA's freedom of information requests are all about ensuring that the 8,100 metric tonnes of U.S. sovereign gold is still owned by the U.S. In April, 2008 the Federal Reserve responded to GATA's request, releasing hundreds of pages of worthless information with significant portions redacted." (here's a link to the above - http://www.chrismartenson.com/forum/us-gold-going-or-completely-gone/19889 If this is true, over 5,000 metric tonnes of gold are missing which would leave us with at most, 3,100 tonnes. At $1,100 per troy onuce, the theft would represent around $180 billion dollars. The remaining 3,100 tonnes, valued at $1,100 / troy ounce, would come to just under $110 billion.
How do we back a $15 trillion money supply (M3) with $110 billion in gold?
Gold could be used in a complimentary currency but even if all of the gold were used - it would account for around 0.07% of our total money supply.
nirgrahamUK wrote:
_____________________________________
Good question, and the short answer is that I'm for real monetary reform.
I also have some ideas as to how we can greatly reduce the current monetary crisis:
There are many creative things that we can do by taking back the issuance and control of our money.
DrKrbyLuv: END the FED, all new money should be issued by the government. The money could be free of debt (from the government's perspective) to eliminate any national debt. Banks could borrow the money they lend to the private sector from the government. For example, they could be charged 1%. The new revenue stream would eliminate the need for federal income tax and "fractional lending" would no longer happen. Banks could mark up the interest or they could be compensated by transaction fees. If interest is charged, the exponential function would increase the debt and expand the gap between money and debt as discussed earlier. This problem could be resolved by having debt free money directly spent into the economy for infrastructure projects. I'd prefer it be done on the State level - to "decentralize" the system. A good example of this is Byron Dale's proposed MTA
It's very clear here that you nor Tom have any idea in the slightest on what your talking about and if you got all this information from Byron Dale than I would tell you to stop listening to his nonesense and start cracking open books.
The only thing worse than a zealot is one who realizes he is as such and refuses to learn the truth. Read a book, I beg you.
You guys are espoused to so much intellectual dishonesty it's hard to even respond int he midst of your incoherent rambling. It's hard to take anything you have seriously. The reason why I asked Tom what a good economy is was to prove a point on his understanding of economics. His response proves that he can't see past Byron's rhetoric and that he has done no research of his own.
Another one of the falsehoods espoused here was that we ran out of gold and that history proved this. Such a radical claim was not sited of coarse. HIstory did not prove this in fact and we still have plenty of gold and silver.
On a free market we can only speculate what unit of exchange would become desirable to consumers. Whos to say it will be only one type? Such speculations are naive. Lending money is a legitimate market function just as selling banana's is. I tried to tell this to Tom earlier but he went on some incoherant rant about dept paying off dept which was entirely un-related to my point.
In a closed system the lending of money does not necessarily create new money, but it borrows from the moneystock of the people. An honest bank may allow depositors an option to open a specific savings account where they earn interest on their money. They do this with the understanding that their money may not always be withdrawable as the banks lend it out. Normal checking accounts from the honest bankers would not lend out checking depositors money. So consumers have an intensive to allow the banks to lend money, its just not done so without their consent or behind their back.
The interest earned in this type of bank account does NOT come from new magically created money as you argue. It comes from the bank charging the lendee the service of offering a loan. To someone who takes a loan they value 1000 now more than 1100 later. It may be that they have an investment that will pay off more than the 10% interest or whatever. This 10% is paid to the bank from the lendee out of his own personal moneystock.
No new money is made. Only money is transfered for payment on various services. You guys need to get back to the fundamentals of monetary theory. You have so many ridiculous and obsured theory's floating around in your head that your own arguments are inconsistent with reality.
DrKrbyLuv:I also have some ideas as to how we can greatly reduce the current monetary crisis:
Monetary Crisis? Your posting on an Austrian Economics forum. Do you know what the Business Cycle is?
DrKrbyLuv:How do we back a $15 trillion money supply (M3) with $110 billion in gold?
tomozope:I'm not interested in talking about economics, I'm interested in talking about how our monetary system works. But here is the definition of economics for you.
Oh god, what a mess.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
DrKrbyLuv:We owe the private Federal Reserve around $4.5 trillion dollars.
DrKrbyLuv: We owe the private Federal Reserve around $4.5 trillion dollars. I suggest the Treasury create the money for free, then send it electronically to the Federal Reserve. I'd call them to tell them it's coming then, it would appear on their computer screen - and it would extinguish our debt - it would simply cease to exist. This could be deflationary as our money supply would be reduced by the same amount. To counter, I'd suggest some debt free money be injected to the money supply in building infrastructure. Government internal debt is around $6 trillion dollars - that is debt owed to social security, medicare and government pensions. This debt is unfair as we the people are effectively creditors and debtors to the same money. I suggest the Treasury create the money for free, to repay this debt. I would make 0% loans available to reduce our energy usage. Home and building owners could use the money to upgrade their mechanical and electrical systems. The criteria could be that to qualify, it must be shown that energy use would be reduced by 50%. Banks could handle the transactions and be compensated through fees. This might include new doors, windows and insulation with a higher "R" value. HVAC systems could be upgraded, for example inefficient furnaces could be replaced with geothermal heat pumps that operate at 250-400% efficiency. "We the People" insure mortgages through Fannie and Feddie - since we ultimately back these loans, we should own them and reap the benefits along with the liabilities. At the end of 2007, there were around $14.5 trillion in mortgages. I would create this money debt free through the Treasury and buy the mortgages - paying only the outstanding principal. To qualify, homes and buildings would have to be appraised at 120% of the mortgage. A low interest rate could be used, maybe 3%, to reduce the monthly mortgage payments while simultaneously creating revenue for the government to eliminate all taxes.
So you don't object to monetary central planning, you just want the government to centrally plan it without the central bank it created. Your proposal, then, consists of having the government literally print around 25 trillion dollars (I guess they could make 1 million dollar bills) and start handing it out to various bankrupt socialist institutions, monetizing their own debt. At the same time, you want them to eliminate the entire banking system and set some sort of interest rate without the loanable funds market. Meaning, whenever someone demanded credit, the government would just print the money and give it to them at some entirely arbitrary interest rate. So the objection here is aimed towards the new and modern ways the government centrally plans the monetary system and efficiently debases the currency. I take it that you don't object to legal tender laws at all, that is, government coercion towards those who demand sound money they actually value. Such a claim could only be made by someone who is entirely ignorant of every single economic principle, one who misunderstands any notion of equilibrium, value, and the purpose of the price mechanism. Your proposals would send us back to a time before civilization, when people depended on hunting and gathering for their own subsistence.
"For the naive mind there is something miraculous in the issuance of fiat money. A magic word spoken by the government creates out of nothing a thing which can be exchanged against any merchandise a man would like to get. How pale is the art of sorcerers, witches, and conjurors when compared with that of the government's Treasury Department! " -Ludwig von Mises
I've already refuted your whole 'interest-paradox' argument. Get off youtube and start reading books.
bravo Mr Esuric
filc wrote:
_____________________
What percentage of loans do you think are handled this way? I'd be surprised if banks were lending depositors money for even 1% of their loans. You suggest that I "espouse to so much intellectual dishonesty" but it is you who doesn't understand the mechanics of money in our system.
281 7772400 10058400 259 261 257 276 262 279 1 0`````````````````````` 5 1 0 285 282 1 False 0 0 0 0 -1 304800 243 True 128 77 255 3175 3175 70 True True True True True 278 134217728 1 3 -9999996.000000 -9999996.000000 8 Empty 16711680 52479 26367 13421772 16737792 13382502 16777215 Bluebird 22855687 22860000 (`@````````` 266 263 5 110180887 110185200
Robert Hemphill, past Manager of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta stated:
"If all the bank loans were paid no one would have a bank deposit and there would not be a dollar of coin or currency in circulation. This is a staggering thought. We are completely dependent on the commercial banks.
Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous: if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture the tragic absurdity of our hopeless position is almost incredible, but there it is.
It (the banking problem) is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon. It is so important that our present civilization may collapse unless it becomes widely understood and the defects remedied very soon."
And here is a quote from the Congressional Research Service:
"Money is created when loans are issued and debts incurred. Money is extinguished when loans are repaid."
You are completely wrong in suggesting that our monetary crisis is the result of any "business cycle." It is the result of a monetary system that is a scam, a ponzi scheme - it is mathematically flawed; it was designed to fail. I've already documented the exponential growth of debt and explained why our debt based system cannot be sustained. Eventually, we will collapse in debt and we are getting close to that terminal point.
281 7772400 10058400 259 261 257 276 262 279 1 0`````````````````````` 5 1 0 285 282 1 False 0 0 0 0 -1 304800 243 True 128 77 255 3175 3175 70 True True True True True 278 134217728 1 2 -9999996.000000 -9999996.000000 8 Empty 16711680 52479 26367 13421772 16737792 13382502 16777215 Bluebird 22855687 22860000 (`@````````` 266 263 5 110180887 110185200
"If all the bank loans were paid no one would have a bank deposit and there would not be a dollar of coin or currency in circulation. This is a staggering thought. We are completely dependent on the commercial banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous: if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture the tragic absurdity of our hopeless position is almost incredible, but there it is. It (the banking problem) is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon. It is so important that our present civilization may collapse unless it becomes widely understood and the defects remedied very soon."
DrKrbyLuv:What percentage of loans do you think are handled this way?
non-sequitur. This response is borderline off-topic to what I posted. This seems to be trollish like activity.
DrKrbyLuv:You are completely wrong in suggesting that our monetary crisis is the result of any "business cycle."
An entire armada of economists and a mountain of imperical recorded evidence would argue to the contrary. Are you denouncing the observed relevency of the business cycle?
DrKrbyLuv:Money is created when loans are issued and debts incurred. Money is extinguished when loans are repaid." -- Congressional Research Service
You and Tom like to post arbitrary quotes that are either non-relevant or taken out of context on an entirely seperate topic. You also fail to actually provide a source to your quotes.
DrKrbyLuv: I've already documented the exponential growth of debt and explained why our debt based system cannot be sustained.
YOU personally did not document anything. Your simply restating someone elses's faulty research and did a poor job of it. I beleive Esuric already refuted this silly argument
Esuric:I've already refuted your whole 'interest-paradox' argument. Get off youtube and start reading books.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
The fed isn't exactly private. It's a federally-mandated cartel of quasi-federal banks.
Wow...is this an Austrian theory or your own personal misconception? The Federal Reserve is 100% owned by private banks. The New York branch owners, hold over 51% of all stock. The New York Fed is by far the most powerful - it is there where interest rates are set and the FOMC and PPT operate. JPM, CitiBank, Goldman Sachs and HSBC are big owners of the New York Fed. This is a major conflict of interest and the reason for the bank bail-out.
No wonder we're going bankrupt!
DrKrbyLuv:Wow...is this an Austrian theory or your own personal misconception?
No it's a methodological error on your part regarding the term "Private". The Federal reserve is a state sponsored coercive monopoly. If it were not so it would not be the "Central Bank", it only would only just be another regular bank.
Also it's chairman and other aspects are appointed by congress.
Try again.