DrKrbyLuv: 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! Larry
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!
Larry
The 1913 federal reserve act (signed by the 'progressive' Wilson) created the Federal Reserve System with 12 regional central banks (Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Richmond, Atlanta, Chicago, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Kansas City, Dallas, San Fransisco), in order to control monetary policy. Indeed, shares are privately held, but to call it a private system/institution(s) is like saying Freddy and Fanny were 'private institutions.' This cartel, like all cartels, is entirely contingent upon government protection and enforcement; it would never emerge from voluntary economic activity (from the free market). Furthermore, the central banks control short-term interest rates by manipulating the money supply, they don't control the money supply, nor can they 'set' long-term interest rates (though they try).
The leading members are appointed by congress. So again, you're completely wrong and confused.
"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."
Ok, lets go with the austrian idea of getting rid of all the central banks.
Now what?
We are still going to be forced to borrow money at interest from the very same private commercial banks that do all the lending to the public right now! What has been solved? OMG we still get to be in debt in order to have any money! Whew we really solved the problem there!
The problem isn't what we use for money its the principles under which out money functions. Wealth Money - vs - Debt money. Honesty - vs - Fraud. This entire banking system is a fraud because they create through book keeping entry our entire money supply as interest bearing loans payable to themselves, then they demand back more numbers than was ever created.
The only reason the fed was ever created was that the banking system needed a way to prevent runs on banks. Any moderate amount of research can/will show this. The Fed was only created to help the banking system maintain it's monopoly over the creation of money as interest bearing loans. We all sit around and get bent out of shape about the fed but the bulk of the money supply is not created by the Fed, it's created over at your local private commercial bank on the street corners on America as interest bearing loans. Once time and interest kick in, the debt grows but the money supply does not.
Plus the Fed only controls the Federally chartered banks and member state banks. All non-member State Chartered banks are completely controlled by the state legislature.
tomozope: Ok, lets go with the austrian idea of getting rid of all the central banks. Now what? We are still going to be forced to borrow money at interest from the very same private commercial banks that do all the lending to the public right now! What has been solved? OMG we still get to be in debt in order to have any money! Whew we really solved the problem there! The problem isn't what we use for money its the principles under which out money functions. Wealth Money - vs - Debt money. Honesty - vs - Fraud. This entire banking system is a fraud because they create through book keeping entry our entire money supply as interest bearing loans payable to themselves, then they demand back more numbers than was ever created. The only reason the fed was ever created was that the banking system needed a way to prevent runs on banks. Any moderate amount of research can/will show this. The Fed was only created to help the banking system maintain it's monopoly over the creation of money as interest bearing loans. We all sit around and get bent out of shape about the fed but the bulk of the money supply is not created by the Fed, it's created over at your local private commercial bank on the street corners on America as interest bearing loans. Once time and interest kick in, the debt grows but the money supply does not. Plus the Fed only controls the Federally chartered banks and member state banks. All non-member State Chartered banks are completely controlled by the state legislature.
Repeating your failed positions and confusion over and over again does not make your argument any stronger. First, you need to realize that saying "there isn't enough money in the economy" is utterly meaningless. Then, you need to understand the nature of credit transactions, the monetary base, and the role of interest rates (wouldn't hurt to understand the credit superstructure (inverted pyramid)). You need to understand the basics before you worry about the solution. The solution is rigorously debated amongst Austrians; you have the Rothbardians and 100% reserve rate, on the one hand, and the 'free bankers,' who don't mind 1-2% reserve rates on the other.
tomozope:We are still going to be forced to borrow money at interest from the very same private commercial banks that do all the lending to the public right now! What has been solved? OMG we still get to be in debt in order to have any money! Whew we really solved the problem there!
A) If you had any fundamental understanding of how cartelization and market monopolies work you would know that we have nothing to really be worried about in such a situation. There is a reason why the central bank must be maintained through violence and cannot exist on it's own by voluntary association.
B) How else do you charge for the service of lending money? Are you making an argument that lending money is un-ethical? Why?
tomozope: Wealth Money - vs - Debt money. Honesty - vs - Fraud
These are rhetorical terms you are your friends have coined that have no tangible meaning.
tomozope:The only reason the fed was ever created was that the banking system needed a way to prevent runs on banks.
This fact alone disproves your entire thesis.
tomozope:Any moderate amount of research can/will show this.
It's too bad you don't actually believe what you just wrote.
tomozope:The Fed was only created to help the banking system maintain it's monopoly over the creation of money as interest bearing loans.
Again if you don't charge interest how else would the service of lending be paid? Should the service be free? Should it be 0% with a collective board deciding who gets dibs?
tomozope:We all sit around and get bent out of shape about the fed but the bulk of the money supply is not created by the Fed, it's created over at your local private commercial bank on the street corners on America as interest bearing loans.
But without this safety net irresponsible banks would fail and the system as we know it would stabilize into honest lenders.
Esuric:First, you need to realize that saying "there isn't enough money in the economy" is utterly meaningless.
The author fails to realize that all of our financial crisis is being cause by a contraction in the money supply. We have a 7.7 trillion dollar money supply, and a 57 Trillion dollar interest bearing debt. How can we get out of a 57 trillion dollar debt with only a 7.7 trillion dollar money supply? It's impossible.
Let me get the austrain and free banker aurgument correct here......Austrians - They don't care if the people are permantly indebted just so long as the banks have the gold? The "free bankers" have a 1-2% reserve consisting of what??? Who cares about the people just so long as the banks can maintain their monoply over the creation of money as interest bearing loans.
My arguement is Wealth - vs- debt. You're argument is debt - vs - debt. I'm glad you're being such a good debt slave defending this banking system, taking the austrian banker controlled 'theory' of how money should be ran. All money must be loaned into exsistance because it's great for the bankers!
With a genious such as yourself can you please tell me how we can borrow ourselves out of debt?
filc: But without this safety net irresponsible banks would fail and the system as we know it would stabilize into honest lenders.
OMG, if all banks create the meduim of exchange as interest bearing loans, then demand back more than was ever created, or you are forced into forecloser, aren't all the banks performing theft by deception? I've never seen such a fine peice of double think in my life "honest lenders". The only way they would be honest if when you got the loan they told you that in time they will use this system to foreclose on all the property of the american people.
tomozope: Esuric:First, you need to realize that saying "there isn't enough money in the economy" is utterly meaningless. The author fails to realize that all of our financial crisis is being cause by a contraction in the money supply. We have a 7.7 trillion dollar money supply, and a 57 Trillion dollar interest bearing debt. How can we get out of a 57 trillion dollar debt with only a 7.7 trillion dollar money supply? It's impossible. Let me get the austrain and free banker aurgument correct here......Austrians - They don't care if the people are permantly indebted just so long as the banks have the gold? The "free bankers" have a 1-2% reserve consisting of what??? Who cares about the people just so long as the banks can maintain their monoply over the creation of money as interest bearing loans. My arguement is Wealth - vs- debt. You're argument is debt - vs - debt. I'm glad you're being such a good debt slave defending this banking system, taking the austrian banker controlled 'theory' of how money should be ran. All money must be loaned into exsistance because it's great for the bankers!
You're simply too stupid to talk to. I tried.
tomozope:With a genious such as yourself can you please tell me how we can borrow ourselves out of debt?
You can't, you have to produce and save your way out of debt.
Hi Banker Bob,
My name is Gold Bug.
I'm having some trouble paying my bills because of mounting financial burdens. Do you think you could give me another big fat loan to help me out of this mess?
Here is my financial statement.
My total worth is 38,000 dollars
My total debt is 57,000 dollars
My future obligations are 64,000 dollars
and
My total money on hand is 7,700 dollars.
Banker Bob's reply,
Hell no man you're already broke!
(change those numbers from thousands to trillions and you have the financial statement of america).
I guess it is impossible to borrow ourselves out of debt. Who da thunk it.
Esuric: You're simply too stupid to talk to. I tried.
If i'm to stupid then please tell me how we borrow ourselves out of debt because that is exactly what America is trying to do. Please explain, I'm really waiting to hear the austrian approach to this.
tomozope:If i'm to stupid then please tell me how we borrow ourselves out of debt because that is exactly what America is trying to do. Please explain, I'm really waiting to hear the austrian approach to this.
You can't; you have to produce and save your way out of debt.
Esuric: You can't; you have to produce and save your way out of debt.
But production creates no money, and the only way anyone can get any money to save is by borrowing it from the bank. Money is only created at private commercial banks as loans. Since both of those options won't work, can you now tell me the only solution to paying off the debt?
tomozope: Hi Banker Bob, My name is Gold Bug. I'm having some trouble paying my bills because of mounting financial burdens. Do you think you could give me another big fat loan to help me out of this mess? Here is my financial statement. My total worth is 38,000 dollars My total debt is 57,000 dollars My future obligations are 64,000 dollars and My total money on hand is 7,700 dollars. Banker Bob's reply, Hell no man you're already broke! (change those numbers from thousands to trillions and you have the financial statement of america). I guess it is impossible to borrow ourselves out of debt. Who da thunk it.
Circular reasoning Tom, and your repeating yourself.
Honestly we've been attacked by these confused monetary cranks for days now and it doesn't really contribute anything of value to this forum. Someone should practice some private property rights and send him and his delusional conspiracies away. He is acting the troll....
I would rather argue with a socialist, at least they have coherent argument. Such debates add value as they learn and readers learn. This post by contrast along with all the other recent monetary posts are just riddled with falsities and incoherent rhetorical garbage.
tomozope:But production creates no money
Money is just a medium of exchange. Creating more money doesn't mean people get more wealthy.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
filc:This post by contrast along with all the other recent monetary posts are just riddled with falsities and incoherent rhetorical garbage.
Those numbers come directly from David Walker former Comptroller General of the USA and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York's website. (as of last august).
I'm sorry if the facts hurt. I'll stop presenting facts and start presenting falsehoods now.
Gold is money, and if we just had gold money all our problems would be solved because gold has real intrincic value. It matters not that we are permantly indebted just so long as we have a little bit of a raw element of the earth in our pockets. Gold is money.
tomozope:But production creates no money, and the only way anyone can get any money to save is by borrowing it from the bank. Money is only created at private commercial banks as loans. Since both of those options won't work, can you now tell me the only solution to paying off the debt?
You have a real problem with money. Money is not wealth, people are not made wealthier when they increase their cash holdings. As total output increases, society is made wealthier, we have more stuff, and the purchasing power of the monetary unit increases. Increased production allows for more savings and consumption simultaneously, without changing the ratio between them. This is one reason why an invariable money supply benefits debtors at the expense of creditors. If total output doesn't increase, then you merely need to reduce your consumption and save more (pay off debt). You have an income, and you must ration that income over various expenses (including your debt). If you wish to pay off your debt, you merely need to reduce your consumption levels. This is basic economics; something my 13 year cousin understands.
Laughing Man: Money is just a medium of exchange. Creating more money doesn't mean people get more wealthy.
You're absolutely correct, but money has to be created under a certain set of principles. Right now the actual creation of money always involves an extention of credit by a private commercial bank, and as soon as time and interest kick in the debt grows but the money supply does not. There is no more effective tool then creating the meduim of exchange as interest bearing loans to transfer all the wealth of the people into the hands of a few.
We don't need to "Create" money. More money does not equate to more wealth. More gold does not mean more steel.
tomozope: and the only way anyone can get any money to save is by borrowing it from the bank.
You can save units of exchange or save commodities and either pay or barter your dept away. It is entirely possible to get out of dept. People and business's do it all the time.
tomozope:Since both of those options won't work, can you now tell me the only solution to paying off the debt?
We don't need to create new money to pay off dept. We pay off dept with existing units of exchange.
The demand for Credit is not a demand for more "NEW" money. Issuing credit is a temporal issue, not a monetary issue and as I said like 10 times now is a legitimate market function. It's not some conspiracy that only happens from banks. I have previously lent money to my co-workers for lunch. They have paid me in return plus interest. That interest was not some new dollar bill magically fabricated out of their wallets.
tomozope: but money has to be created under a certain set of principles.
No it doesn't. Money does not need to be created at all.
tomozope:You're absolutely correct, but money has to be created under a certain set of principles. Right now the actual creation of money always involves an extention of credit by a private commercial bank, and as soon as time and interest kick in the debt grows but the money supply does not. There is no more effective tool then creating the meduim of exchange as interest bearing loans to transfer all the wealth of the people into the hands of a few.
This is what happens when you watch Zietgiest all day.
tomozope:Right now the actual creation of money always involves an extention of credit by a private commercial bank, and as soon as time and interest kick in the debt grows but the money supply does not.
Yes but money doesn't just stay stationary. It moves from individual to individual.
filc: No it doesn't. Money does not need to be created at all.
If that statement is true then how would new money get put into circulation because money is not just "out there". Money is a manmade product that has to be manufactured.
Esuric: This is what happens when you watch Zietgiest all day.
I've never watched zietgiest.
Laughing Man: Yes but money doesn't just stay stationary. It moves from individual to individual.
and that is true, but when that money is spent back to the bank to pay off a loan the principle part of that loan is written off the books and extuiguished drying up the money supply. Do you understand that there is no money until someone borrows it from a private commericial bank and when that loan is paid back that money is written off the books?
my grandmother is debt free. explain this conundrum.....
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
tomozope:If that statement is true then how would new money get put into circulation because money is not just "out there". Money is a manmade product that has to be manufactured.
Your begging the question that new money needs to be created and enter into circulation. This is faulty logic and I have pointed out your circular reasoning in the past. When will you stop your faulty logic and actually think? For that matter read up on logical fallacies, your arguments are riddled with them.
Answer that Tom
nirgrahamUK: my grandmother is debt free. explain this conundrum.....
Simple, she has captured someone else's borrowed money.
filc:Why does new money need to enter into circulation?
Because in our modern society we are dependent on money in order for it to work. All the 'money' that is in circulation right now is only temporarily in circulation and will be removed from circulation when the principle part of those loans are paid back. If no new money is put into circulation, in time 100% of the money will be pulled out of circulation. If you think you can live through that you're either crazy, or a pretty good canabilist. There is no such thing as permanant money in our debt money system. Under a wealth money system you would have permanant money and you would only have to put enough in to satisfy the purchasing requirements of society.
Money is created when loans are issued and debts incurred; money is extinguished when loans are repaid" - Congressional research service.
Ok the primary reason this thread has been going on for 10 pages now is because you are incapable of formulating a coherent argument. Your jumping around from point to point not directly addressing any one of our questions. Since your incapable of using plain english to speak I'll paraphrase your argument.
Try staying to a single point. We will go point by point refuting each of them. Stop going in circles and stop repeating yourself.
You have an asinine understanding of money and an even worse solution. I'll lump you with Larry since you agreed with him as much and go through your solution piece by piece. You argue that our recent financial termoils are not related to any business cycle but to money mysticism. You even blatently and outright denied the ABCT.
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.
So you want to believe the fairy tail that all money is dept. You want the nation to forgive all dept and make the money neutral. Since the money is only a unit of exchange and therefore only a representation of a nations wealth, and since the actual money really wasn't dept at all but a representation of that nations wealth nothing happens. Step one literally does NOTHING to the state of the economy. No improvement is made, in fact a net loss would occur for the administrative overhead of moving the Fed beaucracy from the Fed to the Federal Reserve of the US GOv. Ignoring that point however, Step one literally does nothing to the wealth of the country. Nothing. It does not magically make new steal appear. It does not magically produce 1 billion new ipods instantaneously. It does not rain gold from the sky. It doesn't even change the money supply stock. Since what you believe is a fairy tail at any rate, nothing happens. No "REAL" wealth is lost, and no "REAL" wealth is gained. Money is not wealth, it can only ever be a representation of wealth. That rule would apply gold or fiat currencies alike.
DrKrbyLuv::2. 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.
Reasoning for this step? All you've done here is changed violent cartelization of banking from government sponsored to government hosted. Both systems are a banking monopoly existing only by the means of violence. This step will not improve the health of the banking industry. All you've done is shifted around the mafia participants a bit, you didn't dismantle the mafia. You just moved the goods from one gang to the next.
You don't even know correctly what "Fractional Lending" means. You only know what this idiot boyl has told you.
DrKrbyLuv::3. Banks could mark up the interest or they could be compensated by transaction fees.
If lending institutions are legally prevented from making money there will be no lending. This step shows a fundamental mis-understanding you and your cranks have regarding the roll of interest. The concept that credit should be free is akin to going to the store and believing all milk should be free. It's lunacy which is pretty much what you represent. Goods and services are not free. If lending was interest free, and therefore free of charge there would be an insane demand for loans and we'd have the business cycle situation we have today. Not too mention then you actually would have rampant inflation.
DrKrbyLuv::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 proposedMTA
Interest does not create new money. We've proven this before. I'll prove it again.
If I lend you 10 gallons of gasoline with 10% interest. Do you fabricate the other 1 gallon of gasoline out of thin air?No you need to save up an additional 1 Gallon of gasoline and pay me back plus my principle. No NEW gasoline appeared out of the sky like magic, you took it from savings. You are the equivalent of a modern mystic believing such folly.
Now I think what we need to do here is correct an elementary cognitive error where you beleive that the wealth of a nation is tied to money. Money is not wealth, not in our system or any system. Gold money is not wealth, silver money is not wealth. Wealth is a collection of things that consumers find desirable. Most people in our country who have "savings" don't own savings in dollars but in commodities, stocks, and other various investment models. They are invested in the "economy". The dollars we have are mearly representations that the economic system as a whole has. If your economy increases output your purchasing power also increases dollar for dollar. No new dollars need to enter the system. The same quantity of dollars can represent a newer more plentiful quantity of goods and services. This is how an economy grows. Economy's growing are not pegged directly to growth of the dollar perse. If that were true we could just print ourselves to wealth. Whats funny here is this point contradicts your entire premise but you seem to believe it. Your own arguments contradict themselves.
Now radical fluctuations in a money supply does cause problems. A currency swap would definately cause some problems, big problems to be sure. But your little system of swapping our banking system out isn't going make 1 million pounds of useable steel appear out of the sky over night. It won't generate any new economic wealth.
Whats worse is your solution is basically a point for point clone of the existing system. Your solution didn't address any of the supposed concerns you've brought up. Though it's hard to folow your concerns because you seem incapable of directly answering any point and you constant;y repeat refuted points.
You also seem to have a full arsenal of logical fallacies waiting to be used by you. Look lets be honest, you fail at debate, fail at reading comprehension, and probably fail at making us believe your crankish conspiracy theory's.
tomozope: filc: No it doesn't. Money does not need to be created at all. If that statement is true then how would new money get put into circulation because money is not just "out there". Money is a manmade product that has to be manufactured.
Wrong.
This is a baseless assertion. It's not reality however. Units of exchange are discovered on the market on their own.
How do we put banana's into circulation? Banana's are not just "out there".
People acquire banana's on the market. It's not for us to dictate the most efficient way for them to purchase banana's and it's not for us to dictate how many banana's they should have. To assume this is to assume to have the knowledge of the needs of every man women child on the planet. I doubt you are the omniscient being the prophets told us about. But you are to be sure a modern mystic.
tomozope:Because in our modern society we are dependent on money in order for it to work.
False. We are dependent on the dollar only because we are violent compelled to do so. In the absence of the us government who knows what unit of exchange we would use. It would definitely not be federal reserve notes.
tomozope:or a pretty good canabilist.
Oh yes i've heard this. And our lives will be like it was in Mad Max, and meteors will fall from the sky, and pigs will fly and all that shit right? The usual garbage for you today? Would you like some creme in your garbage latte?
tomozope:There is no such thing as permanant money in our debt money system.
There is no such thing is as "Money as Dept".
tomozope: Under a wealth money system
Wealth money system is an arbitrary term that conceptually is identical to the "Money as Dept" system. But since you've changed the name semantically you think it's somehow different. Since you don't know jack shit I don't expect you to understand this. Semantics do often effect the less informed much more.
P.S. Stop posting random non cited quotes. =p
tomozope:Simple, she has captured someone else's borrowed money.
Captured?
tomozope:and that is true, but when that money is spent back to the bank to pay off a loan the principle part of that loan is written off the books and extuiguished drying up the money supply.
It is not as if the loaned money then disappears into a black hole. This money can be used to pay the bank workers who could use it for buying their own things or it can be loaned out again all the while the borrow is providing labor power in whatever sphere in which he/she is being compensated and thus acquiring the money necessary to pay off interest. I have student loans from my undergraduate years...must I borrow money to pay off borrowed money? The principle of it is absurd.
liberty student:Something tells me our friends who challenge Austrian theories with math, have packed up their calculators and gone home.
fakename: filc:Holler at me to return when their mathematical models can predict human action.This is truly what this debate is about -whether or not mathematics is capable of describing human action.
filc:Holler at me to return when their mathematical models can predict human action.
http://mises.org/story/3638
A Note on Mathematical Economics by Murray N. Rothbard
Looks like they should read this then.
Laughing Man: tomozope:and that is true, but when that money is spent back to the bank to pay off a loan the principle part of that loan is written off the books and extuiguished drying up the money supply. It is not as if the loaned money then disappears into a black hole. This money can be used to pay the bank workers who could use it for buying their own things or it can be loaned out again all the while the borrow is providing labor power in whatever sphere in which he/she is being compensated and thus acquiring the money necessary to pay off interest. I have student loans from my undergraduate years...must I borrow money to pay off borrowed money? The principle of it is absurd.
Maybe this video series can help you understand how the mechanics of modern money works and why we are having such hard financial times.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxiTbrlGJGs part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h22UjKwI7rI part 2
These videos focus directly on how our monetary system really works when you cut all the fluff and spin away. I'll agree with you that it is absurd that we have to borrow money to pay off borrowed money, but that is just how our system works. It's more than absurd, it's impossible. The interest is never created in our system.
Conza88: liberty student:Something tells me our friends who challenge Austrian theories with math, have packed up their calculators and gone home. fakename: filc:Holler at me to return when their mathematical models can predict human action.This is truly what this debate is about -whether or not mathematics is capable of describing human action. http://mises.org/story/3638 A Note on Mathematical Economics by Murray N. Rothbard Looks like they should read this then.
Who ever said i was trying to predict human action with math? What I can predict, and mathematically prove is that it's clearly impossible for all of us to get out of debt when all the money is created as an interest bearing debt.
Laughing Man: tomozope:Simple, she has captured someone else's borrowed money. Captured?
Captured, gained, traded, engaged in commerce for, ect.... Captured might not be a commonly used term but its probably the most accurate. Most people would say grandma made some money and has no debt but that is misleading because money is only made in private commercial banks when they issue loans.
filc: tomozope:Because in our modern society we are dependent on money in order for it to work. False. We are dependent on the dollar only because we are violent compelled to do so. In the absence of the us government who knows what unit of exchange we would use. It would definitely not be federal reserve notes. If I told you that there is no law forcing people to accept check book money for payment of anything nor is it called money, would you believe me? Check book money(the true money in our system) is purely money because the "market" accepts it. So if the market got to choose the money (which it did) it chose the checking account money and we can clearly see that because almost nobody deals in cash anymore. I guess you have what you want because through the peoples own choice they have chosen check book money (which is what the FRN's are valued in). tomozope:or a pretty good canabilist. Oh yes i've heard this. And our lives will be like it was in Mad Max, and meteors will fall from the sky, and pigs will fly and all that shit right? The usual garbage for you today? Would you like some creme in your garbage latte? Can you explain in how our society would function without money? tomozope:There is no such thing as permanant money in our debt money system. There is no such thing is as "Money as Dept". The Federal Reserve agrees, the U.S. Treasury Agrees, the U.S. Congressional Research service agrees, but none of them agree with you. "There is no such thing as debt free money under U.S. Law" Thomas Woodward - Congressional Research Service. tomozope: Under a wealth money system Wealth money system is an arbitrary term that conceptually is identical to the "Money as Dept" system. But since you've changed the name semantically you think it's somehow different. Since you don't know jack shit I don't expect you to understand this. Semantics do often effect the less informed much more. P.S. Stop posting random non cited quotes. =p
If I told you that there is no law forcing people to accept check book money for payment of anything nor is it called money, would you believe me? Check book money(the true money in our system) is purely money because the "market" accepts it. So if the market got to choose the money (which it did) it chose the checking account money and we can clearly see that because almost nobody deals in cash anymore. I guess you have what you want because through the peoples own choice they have chosen check book money (which is what the FRN's are valued in).
Can you explain in how our society would function without money?
The Federal Reserve agrees, the U.S. Treasury Agrees, the U.S. Congressional Research service agrees, but none of them agree with you.
"There is no such thing as debt free money under U.S. Law" Thomas Woodward - Congressional Research Service.
Wealth Money is money that is brough into circulation that is neither an obligation of the issuer or the user. Under our current system of debt money it's an obligation of both the issuer and the borrower. Both principly different.
tomozope:Wealth Money is money that is brough into circulation that is neither an obligation of the issuer or the user.
So corn, fish, tasty buds, or troll droppings could be good wealth money?
We are the soldiers for righteousnessAnd we are not sent here by the politicians you drink with - L. Dube, rip
tomozope:Who ever said i was trying to predict human action with math? What I can predict, and mathematically prove is that it's clearly impossible for all of us to get out of debt when all the money is created as an interest bearing debt.
I'm guessing you've recently seen Zeitgeist Addendum?
If not, don't worry - it's repeating the same errors and fallacies you are.
Here is page 191-192 from The Creature From Jekyll Island; G. Edward Griffin - not an Austrian from what I know though;
WHO CREATES THE MONEY TO PAY THE INTEREST?
One of the most perplexing questions associated with this process is "Where does the money come from to pay the interest?" If you borrow $10,000 from a bank at 9%, you owe $10,900. But the bank only manufactures $10,000 for the loan. It would seem, therefore, that there is no way that you - and all others with similar loans - can possibly pay off your indebtedness. The amount of money put into circulation just isn't enough to cover the total debt, including interest. This has led some to the conclusion that it is necessary for you to borrow the $900 for the interest, and that, in turn, leads to still more interest. The assumption is that, the more we borrow, the more we have to borrow, and that debt based on fiat money is a never-ending spiral leading inexorably to more and more debt. This is a partial truth. It is true that there is not enough money created to include the interest, but it is a fallacy that the only way to pay it back is to borrow still more. The assumption fails to take into account the exchange value of labor. Let us assume that you pay back your $10,000 loan at the rate of approximately $900 per month and that about $80 of that represents interest. You realize you are hard pressed to make your payments so you decide to take on a part-time job. The bank, on the other hand, is now making $80 profit each month on your loan. Since this amount is classified as "interest," it is not extinguished as is the larger portion which is a return of the loan itself. So this remains as spendable money in the account of the bank. The decision then is made to have the bank's floors waxed once a week. You respond to the ad in the paper and are hired at $80 per month to do the job. The result is that you earn the money to pay the interest on your loan, and - this is the point -the money you receive is the same money that you previously had paid. As long as you perform labor for the bank each month, the same dollars go into the bank as interest, then out the revolving door as your wages, and then back into the bank as loan repayment. It is not necessary that you work directly for the bank. No matter where you earn the money, its origin was a bank, and its ultimate destination is a bank. The loop through which it travels can be large or small, but the fact remains all interest is paid eventually by human effort. And the significance of that fact is even more startling than the assumption that not enough money is created to pay back the interest. It is that the total of this human effort ultimately is for the benefit of those who create fiat money. It is a form of modern serfdom in which the great mass of society works as indentured servants to a ruling class of financial nobility.
bbnet: tomozope:Wealth Money is money that is brough into circulation that is neither an obligation of the issuer or the user. So corn, fish, tasty buds, or troll droppings could be good wealth money?
If you monetized them as a wealth then yes they could be wealth money, but if you monetized them as a debt then they would be debt money. I wouldn't condsider those to be good money though. Corn is heavy and rots, fish smell, tasty buds? We know why you're an austrian now, and troll droppings? I didn't think trolls exsisted so that might not be on the list.
It really matters not what money is made of but the principles it functions under. Clearly what we use for money works. Anyone can see that, what most people can't see/understand is the effects of a interest bearing debt money system, and the effects that has on their personal life.