This is a great video to watch if you want to learn about how our monetary system works. It's 50 minutes well spent.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Random thoughts and interesting tidbits. . .
. . .focused on current economical and political events.
"But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."
Thomas Jefferson
The Colonies
Oft Visited Websites
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(193)
-
▼
October
(46)
- Quote
- Quote
- Quote
- Homer Everyday For 39 years
- Peter Schiff on the US Dollar
- Quotes
- Anti-War Video
- My Favourite Liberals
- Thomas DiLorenzo: Hamilton´s Curse
- Ron Paul To Come Back When Country Needs Him
- Socialism Continues to Spread
- Tetrahydrocannabinol Good For You?
- Sushi Model of Capital Consumption
- Quote
- Judy Shelton on the "Roots Of The Crisis"
- Mr. Rogers' History Lesson
- UCLA Economists Blame FDR
- A John Stossel Special
- A Poem
- On The Election
- The Absurdity of the Bailout
- John Cleese on Sarah Palin
- The End of an Empire
- Leaving the Gold Standard
- Krugman Wins Nobel Prize for Economics. . .
- Weird Al Still Going Strong
- Socialist America
- Quote
- The Fed Explained By An Australian
- The Big Owe Of '08
- Money As Debt
- A Younger Ron Paul
- "Unleashing an Inflationary Holocaust"
- BlackBerry Ironic
- Quote
- The Real Great Depression
- Hamilton`s Curse
- Zeitgeist: Addendum
- Deficits are not good.
- PHISH is back.
- One more note on the debate. . .
- Canada's Debate
- Jim Rogers on the Fed, the US Dollar, and China
- Vote.
- Canadian Politics
- This is why I liked Ducktales...
-
▼
October
(46)
38 comments:
I love this video. It basically concludes that there is no way to control the banks.
So...we shouldn't try to change the system because resistance is futile?
LOL, you want to change the banks with government intervention? That sounds kinda contradictory with your previous position.
I think to change one, you would need to change the other, no?
I think that your position has been anti-government until now. And now that you want to control the banks with government, you have become a hypocrite.
Your continual misuse of the word hypocrite is irritating.
I'm not an anarchist. Government has a function in society, and one of its most important functions would be regulating and issuing the money supply.
Sorry, you are either for regulation or against. Which is it, Josh? Regulation for pet projects, but not others?
Honestly I have no problem with a money supply that exists outside of the government. Value is determined by the market in the end, so why not let people trade what they feel is appropriate?
I don't have all of the answers here. But surely you agree that a system that leaves the world's population indebted to the banks for more money than actually exists is not sustainable.
LOL, whatever, Josh! With the FED or without the FED you have been proven to be screwed! And now you fall upon your basic assumption: that the market is inherently good.
How are we screwed without the Fed...or central banking in general?
BECAUSE BANKS CAN CREATE MONEY BY WRITING LOANS!
So without banks creating money to write loans, we'd be screwed because?
LOL.
I don't really care about the banks, Josh. Because I know that some sort of regulation is proper in the end. The regulation will come whether the market evangelists like it or not.
Production is the economy. You can not create loans, have a gold standard, trade paper money, or have banks develop without it. If your economy is being gutted by greedy corporations that want to make money by hiring slaves, then that is the core problem. YOU CAN NOT HAVE THE EXCHANGE OF MONEY WITHOUT SOMETHING PRODUCED FIRST>
Yep. Which is the major problem with the US dollar. Lots of it being exchanged and nothing being produced.
It seems to me that it only becomes a problem if people can't pay their loans back. Which means wage flight is the real problem.
Or that money was loaned out at a price set artificially low by a certain central bank.
What would stop banks from doing that if there was no regulation and the economy was good? Nothing.
Risk. The higher price to borrow, the riskier it is to lend.
Booms and busts have existed before the FED, Josh. And many companies have gone out of business as a result.
You can keep saying that, but we both know before the Fed there were other central banks. These banks had the same purpose, just a different name.
With that it is time for me to go to bed.
Yeah, Kingdom.
kingdom?
The King controlled the money supply.
Well I'm sure in the history of currency there are many variations of who controlled the money supply before fiat currencies became the norm.
Kingdoms were fiat currencies. The King was the Fiat and his treasurer the implementation chief.
In latin "fiat" means "let there be". I can find no reference to a King being called a "fiat".
Fiat means authority and a King is the ultimate authority in a Kingdom.
Fiat: an authoritative and often arbitrary order or decree
If a King isn't fiat, I don't know what is! Authority, often arbitrary in order or decree!
Notice: What fiat "is" is an order or decree, which is typically arbitrary. A King is in a position to provide a fiat, but is not a fiat. A King or government provide fiat currencies, but they are not themselves fiat.
If I have this wrong, please reference something that defines "fiat" as "king". Please and Thank you.
1 : a command or act of will that creates something without or as if without further effort 2 : an authoritative determination : dictate a fiat of conscience 3 : an authoritative or arbitrary order : decree government by fiat
Kings could do 1, 2, and 3 with their currencies. They usually left it to their treasurers, but they did it themselves when they wanted.
Fair enough. But the word itself is not a title for the King. It is an action the King, or any government, can perform.
Nor is it a title for the FED>>>>
I never called the FED a FIAT? It has the power delegated by the Congress to print a fiat currency.
Therefore it is a fiat institution for printing money.
Or making new money as is the case. Only the Mint has the fiat to print money.
Post a Comment