|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Jul 14, 2005 21:02:27 GMT -4
You said nobody uses money or currency to pay back loans - you meant to say "nobody uses cash!!
I'm just trying to get clear on if you mean "money" or if you mean "currency". Your explanation for the Depression was "That is the reason for the Great Depression - the Fed purposely stopped printing money." I take "printing money" to mean printing dollar bills and stamping out coins, that is, producing currency.
If you don't mean "currency", then how does the Fed "print money"? I am not arguing with you so much as I am trying to get clear on what you are recommending. Keep in mind that my views are libertarian, so I am always willing to lend an open ear to those who have ideas on how the Fed's operations can be improved.
What I am less eager to hear, note, is that crackpots are calling up the Fed recommending that they print more currency. You asked at the beginning of this thread if any of us care about our finances. I do! I want to be able to retire one day, and I don't need knuckleheads encouraging the Fed to inflate the money supply and devalue my savings and investments.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 14, 2005 21:19:18 GMT -4
You said nobody uses money or currency to pay back loans - you meant to say "nobody uses cash!! It's still money coming outta your account, paying back the loan, joe. Note that they were unable to pay back these loans - if you've got no money in your account, you can send all the checks you want, but they won't exactly clear, will they? He said currency. You said money. The first quote is from you, the second quote is from him. The thread history is here for any one to see. Do you really think you can deceive any one in this way? Martin cur·ren·cy (kûr'ən-sē, kŭr'-) pronunciation n., pl. -cies. 1. Money in any form when in actual use as a medium of exchange, especially circulating paper money.. 2.Money circulated within an economy, including coins and paper notes. Who is being deceptive, martin? English not being your first language, perhaps you should lay off accusing me of deception.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 14, 2005 21:44:09 GMT -4
You said nobody uses money or currency to pay back loans - you meant to say "nobody uses cash!!I'm just trying to get clear on if you mean "money" or if you mean "currency". Your explanation for the Depression was "That is the reason for the Great Depression - the Fed purposely stopped printing money." I take "printing money" to mean printing dollar bills and stamping out coins, that is, producing currency. If you don't mean "currency", then how does the Fed "print money"? I am not arguing with you so much as I am trying to get clear on what you are recommending. Keep in mind that my views are libertarian, so I am always willing to lend an open ear to those who have ideas on how the Fed's operations can be improved. What I am less eager to hear, note, is that crackpots are calling up the Fed recommending that they print more currency. You asked at the beginning of this thread if any of us care about our finances. I do! I want to be able to retire one day, and I don't need knuckleheads encouraging the Fed to inflate the money supply and devalue my savings and investments. As I noted above joe, currency and money are interchangeable within many contexts, certainly as in my post on the Depression. Using a check still means the money in your bank account is being given to the party who gave you the loan. I'm glad to see your post is a positive one regarding this discussion. I, too, like all of us, am very concerned for my finances. I only am trying to create a productive analysis of the Fed and banking in general. The main argument the Fed brings up about controlling the amount of money in circulation is "inflation". They are only stating half the reality. There is a balance between depression and inflation that can be made - when there is a depression, it's important not to "hyper-inflate" by printing too much money into circulation quickly. Gradual increase of currency in circulation allows for a smoother adjustment into a stable system. Note my example of World War I, the Great Depression and the subsequent World War II. These monumental events were fuelled by money supply, as simply as that. I am recommending a system based on those proven historically to have worked the best - these systems were Lincoln's Greenback and US Colonial Scrip. The American Revolution was fought over the control of money against the British, even though history books gloss over this, instead focussing on the taxes imposed on them by the British. And of course, the Greenback died with Lincoln. A new system based on these two, and the abolishment of the Fed, is something I consider to be more important than any other issue today. martin, you seem to feel almost conspiratorial towards me having some secret agenda. Well, I didn't start this "thinning wallets" thread because I'm some rich bugger trying to talk people out of their money or something!! I'm delving into the reasons why we have less less disposable income while banks get richer and richer!! If you aren't interested in probing the methods of the Fed, that's too bad - I am, because they do control my financial state more than ever.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Jul 14, 2005 23:06:50 GMT -4
Turbonium, how should the Fed increase the money supply? Are you recommending printing dollar bills, or do you have something else in mind?
Using a check still means the money in your bank account is being given to the party who gave you the loan.
It also means money is being destroyed. When I borrow money from a bank, the bank creates money. When I pay back the loan, that money is destroyed. (If I did repay in cash, cash in the bank is considered out of circulation, effectively reducing the money supply.)
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 15, 2005 0:27:07 GMT -4
Turbonium, how should the Fed increase the money supply? Are you recommending printing dollar bills, or do you have something else in mind? Using a check still means the money in your bank account is being given to the party who gave you the loan.It also means money is being destroyed. When I borrow money from a bank, the bank creates money. When I pay back the loan, that money is destroyed. (If I did repay in cash, cash in the bank is considered out of circulation, effectively reducing the money supply.) Perfect question, joe. In your example, the money given to you as a loan has to be payed back with interest. But the "interest money" was NEVER put into circulation by the bank! You have to come up with that from outside this exchange, from other parties. And so does everyone else, having to come up with extra money from everyone outside the loaning bank. That means more money is needed from the banks (again as loans) to cover the money supply shortage. But it get worse...... This is where the evil of fractional reserve banking comes in. The banks are required to only have reserves a fraction of the amount they can loan out. They get away with this through creating the "money" for many types of loans as a simple book entry. No physical "cash" is ever used or needed to complete the transactions. Unlike us, the banks have the power to create "virtual money" with a data entry for your loan or mortgage. Say you put $30,000 down payment for your mortgage. You need the cold hard cash to do this. Then, they set up your balance owing as your monthly mortgage, with interest charged on the principle. But, they have not put any money into this transaction. The banks do not have the actual "paper money" they claim to have, even at the tiny reserve ratios they are permitted to keep on hand. If you've ever tried to withdraw more than a couple thousand dollars, you know that they have a limit on how much they will give you - even though it is YOUR money to withdraw. This link is a good primer on the system - it 's a Canadian site but relates and speaks about the Fed and all current banking systems. www.justiceplus.org/essay_index.htm
|
|
|
Post by martin on Jul 15, 2005 9:40:13 GMT -4
cur·ren·cy (kûr'ən-sē, kŭr'-) pronunciation n., pl. -cies. 1. Money in any form when in actual use as a medium of exchange, especially circulating paper money.. 2.Money circulated within an economy, including coins and paper notes. Interesting. Here is what my dictionary says: Who is being deceptive, martin? You are.You are trying to tell us that interest charged by central bank to general budget from creation of money is a way to defraud public and creates budget deficits. This is false. You appear unaware that federal reserve returns all profits to general budget each year. I ask if you did not know this, or if you know but leave it out of your story. You do not answer. You say charging of interest by federal reserve proves it is a private organisation, I point out that social security administration does this also, and ask if it is a private organisation. Four times. You do not answer. I wonder why? English not being your first language, perhaps you should lay off accusing me of deception. Ah, so besides banking system, other thing you do not like about 20th century is that cheeky natives do not show proper respect for Great English Speaking Colonial Lord and Master...well maybe you can change that in 21st century also. Martin
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Jul 15, 2005 10:03:22 GMT -4
Ah, so besides banking system, other thing you do not like about 20th century is that cheeky natives do not show proper respect for Great English Speaking Colonial Lord and Master...well maybe you can change that in 21st century also. ;D
|
|
|
Post by martin on Jul 15, 2005 14:06:26 GMT -4
martin, you seem to feel almost conspiratorial towards me having some secret agenda. I like to know, why are you posting wrong information here, why you do not answer simple questions on your theories, why you change subject and criticise my english when I and others correct mistakes. Maybe you do not want us to know what are your reasons. Maybe you want us to question motives of Krongard and others, but not of turbonium... Well, I didn't start this "thinning wallets" thread because I'm some rich bugger trying to talk people out of their money or something!! I'm delving into the reasons why we have less less disposable income while banks get richer and richer!! And this is useful thing to do. I wonder why are americans become so much poorer since 1913. Now I know it is from secret conspiracy by elite group of millions of shareholders of banks. But did you know this conspiracy is even bigger? In 1940 (just before second wolrd war - hmm...), secret US law creates "management companies," which allow conspriators to hide from the banks they own their identities! And "management companies" do not pay similar taxes as other corporations! These "management companies" have no employees, they perform all work through "agents," to hide even further, who is part of this conspiracy. And also, in 1981, IRC Section 401 creates "qualified pension, profit-sharing, and stock bonus plans," which allow big corporations to receive profits from banking stocks without taxes! I am not surprised, when some people here, are part of this conspiracy, and own shares in these "management companies" and "qualified pension, profit-sharing, and stock bonus plans." Maybe you are one of them? If you aren't interested in probing the methods of the Fed, that's too bad - I am, because they do control my financial state more than ever. I think you need to find people who do not have access to information on federal reserve system... Martin
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 15, 2005 22:09:04 GMT -4
I have already explained why, but you ignore the details of it.
The Fed creates money Social Security does not. The Fed loans out the money they have created. Social Security does not The Fed charges interest on the money it has created and loaned out. Social Security does not. The Fed is controlled by 12 privately owned banks Social Security is not
Simple, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Jul 15, 2005 22:54:47 GMT -4
Perfect question, joe.
It is, and it would help me understand your position better if you could answer it instead of just saying how you think the system is flawed.
How do you think the Fed should increase the money supply?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 15, 2005 23:04:11 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 15, 2005 23:06:48 GMT -4
Perfect question, joe.It is, and it would help me understand your position better if you could answer it instead of just saying how you think the system is flawed. How do you think the Fed should increase the money supply? First, the Fed needs to be abolished. We have a system controlled by 12 privately owned banks who have more wealth than the rest of the country combined. They didn't get that way by "returning all profits into the government coffers", as the myth that martin likes to propagate.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 15, 2005 23:11:18 GMT -4
With a system similar to the Lincoln Greenback or Colonial Scrip, we can issue money into the system gradually to allow for adjustments. That way, inflation won't be a problem from overabundance and devaluation of currency. Interest does NOT need to be applied on the Gov't spending, relieving that unnecessary burden off the taxpayers.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 15, 2005 23:18:54 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Jul 15, 2005 23:20:01 GMT -4
OK, but what is the financial mechanism you recommend for creating this money that you issue gradually into the system? Are you recommending just firing up the printing presses?
|
|