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)
-
▼
December
(65)
- Listening to CBC. . .
- Gaza Massacre Funded By US
- Fiscal Conservatives Making Their Voice Heard
- More Poetry
- Police Uses Excessive Force to Detain Criminals
- "Seedkeepers" - by an unknown Palestinian
- Lew Rockwell Releases New Book
- Rally For The Republic, #7 Most Watched Video On C...
- "The Revolution: A Manifesto" Most Loved Book
- TSA: Making The World Safer, One Passenger At A Time
- More Comedy
- Will The US Split Into 6 Portions?
- US Military Might Be Needed To Supress Domestic Vi...
- Peter Schiff On The Government Tightening Its Belt
- A Little Liberty Propaganda
- Some Predictions On The Future Of The United State...
- Lacking Sympathy For Israel
- You Think Cheney Was Secretive? Just Wait.
- Protecting Children From Lead Toys
- Liberty and Security
- Quote
- US Heading To Police State?
- I Love CBC Radio
- Paying Taxes Is So Much Fun!!!!!!
- Car Market Collapsing
- A Little Comedy For Once
- Debunking The Keynesian Myth
- I Love Ron Paul Propaganda
- The Damage Done By Regulation
- Should We Build A Battlestar Galactica?
- Commercial Real Estate Ask For Bailout
- Communism: Its A Party!
- The Big Cheese Bail-Out
- New Eras, Old Fallacies: The Fed and the Coming Re...
- Jim Rogers On Where to Invest
- Quote on Taxes
- Pittsburgh Tribune-Review Interviews Thomas DiLorenzo
- Save Polaroid!
- Money, Banking, and the Fed
- Governator Down-Sizing California Government
- Government Ponzi Schemes
- This Seems Reasonable
- Man-Made Global Warming?
- Wedding Photos
- Bush: So What?
- GM, Bankruptcy, the Transfer of Wealth, and Wall S...
- Ron Paul and Peter Schiff
- An Interesting Insight Into Greece
- Lew Rockwell on Bailouts
- Quote
- Bush Dodges Shoe
- Quote
- News Max Interviews Ron Paul
- Peter Schiff on the New New Deal
- Ron Paul To Congress
- Bailing Out Chrysler?
- Who Knew?
- Hilarious Bail-Out Satire
- The Story of Stuff
- A Blurb On Why All Bail-Outs Are Bad
- Chinese continues its takeover of the US economy. . .
- Ron Paul: "Gun Control: Protecting Terrorists and ...
- To Prorogue or Not To Prorogue
- Best Breakfast Ever.
- Peter Schiff Metaphors
-
▼
December
(65)
9 comments:
Time to get rid of all banks, because those 9000 banks that went out of business DUE to the Great Dust Bowl caused huge problems. Banks before the FED also caused huge problems. Let's get rid of the banks and control money printing through Congress and the mint.
Banks should be able to operate freely as any other private enterprise. And like any other enterprise, when one goes bankrupt, those that do business with it will feel a lot of pain, and by association a lot of other people will be affected to. This pain is not preventable and we can't be stupid and believe it is preventable. Its natural. Its part of living in a community.
The banks need to be regulated though, banksters that commit fraud need to be put into prison, and no bank should have the power to set the price of money.
"Banks should be able to operate freely as any other private enterprise. And like any other enterprise, when one goes bankrupt, those that do business with it will feel a lot of pain, and by association a lot of other people will be affected to. This pain is not preventable and we can't be stupid and believe it is preventable. Its natural. Its part of living in a community."
Good, then I can say the same for the FED, because unregulated banks can create money from thin air in the same way the FED currently does. Thus, no difference. Its natural. Its part of living in a big community.
"The banks need to be regulated though, banksters that commit fraud need to be put into prison, and no bank should have the power to set the price of money."
Then you are basically against banks, because creating money out of thin air by making a loan without gold in the vaults to back it up is exactly the same thing as the FED (banks are FIAT insitutions as well) and the primary way banks make big money.
"Good, then I can say the same for the FED, because unregulated banks can create money from thin air in the same way the FED currently does. Thus, no difference. Its natural. Its part of living in a big community."
It's not natural for one bank to hold a monopoly on money creation. The FED is completely different than independent banks.
"Then you are basically against banks, because creating money out of thin air by making a loan without gold in the vaults to back it up is exactly the same thing as the FED (banks are FIAT insitutions as well) and the primary way banks make big money."
Well, this is essentially a "ponzi scheme". You're right though, I'm not a big fan of fractional reserve banking, though, its your choice if you do business with a bank that performs this manner. As an individual, I have to determine if the risk of losing all of my money because of a run on the bank is less or greater than the risk of losing all of my money kept at at home.
"It's not natural for one bank to hold a monopoly on money creation. The FED is completely different than independent banks."
I was commenting on their ability to create money out of thin air, which is the real problem.
"Well, this is essentially a "ponzi scheme". You're right though, I'm not a big fan of fractional reserve banking, though, its your choice if you do business with a bank that performs this manner. As an individual, I have to determine if the risk of losing all of my money because of a run on the bank is less or greater than the risk of losing all of my money kept at at home."
No, this will lead to the same financial crisises. They happened BEFORE the FED was created and will happen as long as banks are in existence.
"I was commenting on their ability to create money out of thin air, which is the real problem."
Well, only the Fed can print money and put a price to it. Banks can create new loans based on their deposits, but they have a vested interest in doing this responsibly, unless government intervenes (CRA) and forces them to lend more than they want to people they don't want to at interest rates that are too low.
"They happened BEFORE the FED was created and will happen as long as banks are in existence."
They were much shorter before the Fed. They will always happen, its natural. Mal investment needs to get cleared out of the system. This is how economies evolve.
"Well, only the Fed can print money and put a price to it. Banks can create new loans based on their deposits, but they have a vested interest in doing this responsibly, unless government intervenes (CRA) and forces them to lend more than they want to people they don't want to at interest rates that are too low."
No, the banks have a vested interest in creating as much money out of thin air as they can. It's called the profit motive, and it DEFINITELY did cause recessions and depressions BEFORE the FED was created. You ignoring this point is just another example of your lying to yourself.
"They were much shorter before the Fed. They will always happen, its natural. Mal investment needs to get cleared out of the system. This is how economies evolve."
Nope. You are still ignoring the Dust Bowl that caused the Great Depression to linger on for a decade. There is no difference between the recession of the FED and the recession created by unregulated banks, except, of course, the high wages of the working class. If you eliminate 4 million to six million high paying jobs, and replace them with lower paying jobs, or no jobs at all, you are going to have a longer recession. It is simple economic mathematics.
"No, the banks have a vested interest in creating as much money out of thin air as they can. It's called the profit motive, and it DEFINITELY did cause recessions and depressions BEFORE the FED was created. You ignoring this point is just another example of your lying to yourself."
Thats like saying I have a vested interest in borrowing as much money as I can without thinking about risk. No, banks do not have an interest in creating as much credit as possible, I'm not ignoring this point. Those that create too much credit fail, as we have been seeing. Yes, this will hurt people, and yes, this could have (I'm not familiar with your historical reference as you provided none, but it seems plausible) caused recessions. So? Recessions are inevitable and they are good for the system as this is how malinvestment (such as bank creating too much credit) get cleaned out. I do not lie to myself.
"If you eliminate 4 million to six million high paying jobs, and replace them with lower paying jobs, or no jobs at all, you are going to have a longer recession. It is simple economic mathematics."
Lets change the language a little a bit. If 4 million to 6 million job are eliminated, are then are replaced with lower paying jobs or no jobs at all, there will be a recession. A longer one? Longer than what? If the jobs were replaced with jobs that provide more value and produce more wealth for society? Yes. But only the market can provide these jobs, the government does not such thing. It takes wealth from the competent, inhibiting their ability to further invest and create jobs, and gives it to the incompetent, allowing them to create jobs that serve little value.
If you don't understand the difference between a central bank and a private bank, look it up.
"Thats like saying I have a vested interest in borrowing as much money as I can without thinking about risk. No, banks do not have an interest in creating as much credit as possible, I'm not ignoring this point. Those that create too much credit fail, as we have been seeing. Yes, this will hurt people, and yes, this could have (I'm not familiar with your historical reference as you provided none, but it seems plausible) caused recessions. So? Recessions are inevitable and they are good for the system as this is how malinvestment (such as bank creating too much credit) get cleaned out. I do not lie to myself.
"
I didn't say "as possible". I said "as they can", which means as much money as they can create and still make their members feel safe about their deposits.
"Yes, this will hurt people, and yes, this could have (I'm not familiar with your historical reference as you provided none, but it seems plausible) caused recessions."
Marx studied this stuff long before the FED. It was the basis of his critique of capitalism in the Kapital.
"So? Recessions are inevitable and they are good for the system as this is how malinvestment (such as bank creating too much credit) get cleaned out. I do not lie to myself.
"
No, they are times of potential revolution, especially if wages of the majority of the population is low enough.
"Lets change the language a little a bit. If 4 million to 6 million job are eliminated, are then are replaced with lower paying jobs or no jobs at all, there will be a recession. A longer one? Longer than what?"
You guys are the ones saying that the Great Depression was prolonged. Prolonged based on what data? BASED ON WHAT?
"If the jobs were replaced with jobs that provide more value and produce more wealth for society?"
They are not being replaced with those kinds of jobs. They are being replaced with service jobs.
"Yes. But only the market can provide these jobs, the government does not such thing. It takes wealth from the competent, inhibiting their ability to further invest and create jobs, and gives it to the incompetent, allowing them to create jobs that serve little value."
The government has financed some of the most biggest booms in history. The interstate highways, internet, rail boom, and many different techs.
We already had this argument. I clearly showed that government funded tech, strategy, and science has caused huge economic increases in wealth.
I'd love to see you tell a government employee to his face that he is incompetent. I'd also love to see you prove that they are incompetent. Obviously such rhetoric is pure rubbish to anyone with a brain.
"If you don't understand the difference between a central bank and a private bank, look it up."
I do. What you dont understand is how they are the same, and that private banks were creating the same busts BEFORE the creation of the FED.
Post a Comment