Cleric: "Replace capitalism with Islamic financial system"

[Gaius1981]

Part tragic, part comical, part disturbing. Make of it what you will.

Cleric: "Replace capitalism with Islamic financial system"


Muslims should take advantage of the global financial crisis to build an economic system compatible with Islamic principles, influential Sunni cleric Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi said on Sunday.

"The collapse of the capitalist system based on usury and paper and not on goods traded on the market is proof that it is in crisis and shows that Islamic economic philosophy is holding up," said the Egyptian-born, Qatar-based cleric.

"The Western system has collapsed and we have a complete economic philosophy as well as spiritual strength," he said at Sunday's opening of a conference on Jerusalem.

"All riches are ours... the Islamic nation has all or nearly all the oil and we have an economic philosophy that no one else has," Qaradawi said.

He urged Muslims to "profit from the crisis to bring about the triumph of the (Islamic) nation, which holds the spiritual and material resources for victory."

The sixth conference on Jerusalem is being attended by around 300 people representing political parties as well as Muslim and Christian NGOs, from various countries.

It is staged by Al-Quds (Jerusalem) International Institution, which is dedicated to the conservation of the holy city and its sacred places.

Participants include Khaled Meshaal, exiled head of the Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas, and Ali Akbar Velayati, a top adviser to Iranian spiritual leader Ali Khamenei.

The three-day conference will look at ways of protecting Jerusalem and its holy sites, which participants believe are threatened by Israel.

Source: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=081012151913.899p7n58&show_article=1&lst=1

[Antonius Stone]

i just saw that and I was reading about Islamic economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_economics#Banking) just now. Apparently, under Islamic economics, all banks are supposed to have 100% reserve ratios. They also don't charge interest on loans...they just do a price markup on whatever it is you want to buy via loan.

[lucius]

Part tragic, part comical, part disturbing. Make of it what you will.

Time to bash on orthodox Islam, with its enmity toward usury, political corruption and other Zionist/Kabbalah staples.

Not to mention the outrageous idea of using a gold-back currency such has the Islamic gold dinar (4.25 grams of 22-carat gold).

Like the good reverend hagee teaches: Say Islamofascism three times and it will all go away... :rolleyes:

[V-rod]

How much will it cost for me to buy 21 virgins?

[nate895]

Time to bash on orthodox Islam, with its enmity toward usury, political corruption and other Zionist/Kabbalah staples.

Not to mention the outrageous idea of using a gold-back currency such has the Islamic gold dinar (4.25 grams of 22-carat gold).

Like the good reverend hagee teaches: Say Islamofascism three times and it will all go away... :rolleyes:

In Judaism, usury, and in fact all lending and borrowing of money, is banned as well.

[tmosley]

How much will it cost for me to buy 21 virgins?

About 7 goats.

But seriously, yes. I have been thinking that the Islamic system might just make a triumphant comeback soon after the collapse of the west. We may end up with a four pole world, the US and Russia being the old, corrupt superpowers through established industrial base and military, and China and some pan-Arab state being the fresh new ones through economy and population.

It's probably a good thing. Monoculture leads to extinction. It's much better to have multiple methods of governance.

[nate895]

About 7 goats.

But seriously, yes. I have been thinking that the Islamic system might just make a triumphant comeback soon after the collapse of the west. We may end up with a four pole world, the US and Russia being the old, corrupt superpowers through established industrial base and military, and China and some pan-Arab state being the fresh new ones through economy and population.

It's probably a good thing. Monoculture leads to extinction. It's much better to have multiple methods of governance.

There is a movement to reestablish the Caliphate. That is when offensive jihad becomes possible, so we definitely want to withdraw our troops and get peace before they reestablish the Caliphate, otherwise we might face the world's Sunni population invading us.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

ah. They obviously don't know the definition of capitalism, doesn't that just nullify the entire article? A "capitalist system" would be, well, no system lol. Banks would do their own thing, FDIC wouldn't exist, central banking wouldn't exist, they obviously don't know what the hell they're talking about.

[nate895]

ah. They obviously don't know the definition of capitalism, doesn't that just nullify the entire article? A "capitalist system" would be, well, no system lol. Banks would do their own thing, FDIC wouldn't exist, central banking wouldn't exist, they obviously don't know what the hell they're talking about.

Yes, the Islamic system is almost capitalism itself. It surely is more capitalist than our system. The only difference is that Islamic banks never achieve 100% reserves.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Yes, the Islamic system is almost capitalism itself. It surely is more capitalist than our system. The only difference is that Islamic banks never achieve 100% reserves.

Why should any bank receive anything from the government?

[nate895]

Why should any bank receive anything from the government?

That's not what I was saying, I was saying that Islamic Banks do not maintain 100% reserves on deposits like free market capitalist banks, and that is the only difference between the Islamic system and true capitalism.

[Mini-Me]

Yes, the Islamic system is almost capitalism itself. It surely is more capitalist than our system. The only difference is that Islamic banks never achieve 100% reserves.

I disagree with their prohibition against "usury," but you're right: On the whole, the Islamic system IS in many ways more capitalist than ours. The fact that they're decrying "capitalism" and calling for a reinstatement of their own financial system is a testament to just how much the world "capitalism" has been perverted. :(

In any case, all the more power to them! It gives me hope that some people, somewhere in the world, are not going to run to join a one world fiat banking system. As tmosley says frequently, monocultures lead to extinction...I welcome the coming of a monetary system competing with the central bankers.

[The_Orlonater]

These Islamic "Economists" are a joke.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

That's not what I was saying, I was saying that Islamic Banks do not maintain 100% reserves on deposits like free market capitalist banks, and that is the only difference between the Islamic system and true capitalism.

but... if gov is involved, then it's not a free market lol.

as far as what we have... nationalizing the Fed would be superior to this mercantilistic crap.

[nate895]

but... if gov is involved, then it's not a free market lol.

as far as what we have... nationalizing the Fed would be superior to this mercantilistic crap.

The only thing the government would be doing is enforcing a contract. It is a fraud to have less than 100% reserves.

[lucius]

In Judaism, usury, and in fact all lending and borrowing of money, is banned as well.

:rolleyes:


USURY: Lending money on interest. The Book of *Deuteronomy forbids usury between *Jews, but allows it in transactions with gentiles. In the Middle Ages, money lending became a common source of livelihood among Jews because Christians could not lend money on interest and Jews were excluded from the craft and trade guilds. This was the origin of the stereotype of the Jew as an avaricious financier eg. Shakespeare’s Shylock. 'A Popular Dictionary of Judaism', Dan Cohn-Sherbok and Lavinia Cohn-Sherbok, p. 156 (ISBN: 9780203986202)

[JosephTheLibertarian]

The only thing the government would be doing is enforcing a contract. It is a fraud to have less than 100% reserves.

I think banks should reserve themselves - I guess I'm old fashioned :p

[Mini-Me]

These Islamic "Economists" are a joke.

Not really...they may have some misconceptions that stem from their religion, but could you seriously call them more of a "joke" than funny-money new Keynesians? ;)

[CableNewsJunkie]

Joe Sixpack: "Ron Paul and his gold-standard idea was startin' to make sense, but now the media says that would help al-Qaeda, so I don't support it any more. U-S-A!!! U-S-A!!! U-S-A!!!"

[nate895]

:rolleyes:

So you are opposed to them taking advantage of morons? If a moron wants to get a loan at a ridiculous rate, what business is it of ours, and why are the Jews evil because of it. I am sick of this Jewish conspiracy crap. The Jews are a tribe that number at around 20 million, and if they were all involved in some conspiracy, someone would have said something.

[Mini-Me]

The only thing the government would be doing is enforcing a contract. It is a fraud to have less than 100% reserves.

This is untrue. As long as depositers are made aware that the money they deposit will be loaned out again (or otherwise moved out of reserves in any way) and understand the inherent risks involved, no fraud is occurring. Now, if the bank pretends like all deposits are held in reserve while they're truly being loaned out again, that would be fraud.

When we think of a "bank," we think of an institution that intermediates the investment of money between lenders (depositers) and borrowers. Requiring full reserve banking kind of invalidates the very meaning of a bank as we know it, and an entirely different type of business would emerge in its place. You must understand that unless reserves are allowed to dip below 100%, banks are not allowed to make ANY loans with money that isn't entirely theirs (they must only loan out unborrowed money). Instead of paying customers interest on deposits, they'd be more like safety deposit boxes, and customers would pay a fee for the bank to hold their funds. Unless the bank does other things on the side, the only reserves banks would have to loan money from would be the reserves built out of these fees.

In reality, both fractional reserve banks and full reserve banks can coexist in a free market.

[nate895]

This is untrue. As long as depositers are made aware that the money they deposit will be loaned out again and understand the inherent risks involved, no fraud is occurring.

Now, if the bank pretends like all deposits are held in reserve while they're truly being loaned out again, that would be fraud.

The problem in letting banks do that is that it causes inflation, deflation, recession, and depression. This is why banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies. They produce money from thin air which will eventually lead to a loss of a lot of money, sending us into a deflationary depression.

[nate895]

You must understand that unless reserves are allowed to dip below 100%, banks are not allowed to make ANY loans with money that isn't entirely theirs (they must only loan out unborrowed money). Instead of paying customers interest on deposits, they'd be more like safety deposit boxes, and customers would pay a fee for the bank to hold their funds. Unless the bank does other things on the side, the only reserves banks would have to loan money from would be the reserves built out of these fees.

That is the purpose of CDs and IRAs, that is the money that they are supposed to lend out to people. In a commodity standard with full-reserve banking, it would be unnecessary for the average person to get a loan for much of anything. Only people looking to start businesses would need a loan. Also, the average person wouldn't even need a bank account, they would simply use the specie itself. Only the rich who have a lot of money to protect would need banks, and they would most likely deposit most of their money in IRAs and CDs.

[The_Orlonater]

Not really...they may have some misconceptions that stem from their religion, but could you seriously call them more of a "joke" than funny-money new Keynesians? ;)

Oh, the Keynesians are a joke too, but I was just talking about these guys in general.

[Mini-Me]

The problem in letting banks do that is that it causes inflation, deflation, recession, and depression. This is why banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies. They produce money from thin air which will eventually lead to a loss of a lot of money, sending us into a deflationary depression.

I edited my post above to include more detail, so you might want to reread (I just noticed that you responded to an older version).

Anyway, I think you're missing the difference between the effect of commercial banks and central banks here. Fractional reserve banks do create periodic inflation and deflation of the credit supply, but unless a central bank is pumping "free" credit into the system (and/or taking it out), this process is entirely valid, and it's still not inflation of the base money supply. They're not creating money out of "thin air" like central banks do; rather, they're just loaning money they've borrowed themselves. Heck, the same thing goes when people loan out unborrowed money and are so overly confident that it will be paid back that they consider the IOU from their borrower to be as good as still having the cash themselves. This same effect is possible whenever any money is loaned out (at least without full collateral being offered - which is the subject of a debate I've had with eskimoranger in another thread :)). Under fractional reserve banking, there's the appearance that money has been created out of thin air, since people today have been defrauded into thinking that IOU's from banks (i.e. their bank deposits) are as good as cash...and because of that, you could say that money was created, since money is merely what people think it is. However, this false assumption that IOU's from banks are always as liquid as cash is not a necessary or inevitable consequence of fractional reserve banking. After all, the only reason people accept bank deposit transfers as "real money" is by convention and misplaced trust. If fractional reserve banking were not so protected and guaranteed by the government as it is today, and if people were not defrauded into thinking it's entirely safe, people would most likely not consider credit (IOU's) to be as good as cold hard cash, like they do today. Once that psychological shift is made where people understand the difference between cash in hand and IOU's which can be defaulted on at any time, the effects of credit inflation and deflation become pretty immaterial. (Of course, it's quite a different story when a central bank can loan out money that did not even previously exist and they created out of thin air in the first place...and there's confusion between "real" money and "credit," since our supposedly "real" money is also CALLED credit, since it's a loan from the Federal Reserve...but despite the conflation of two types of credit into one word, there's still a difference.)

[Mini-Me]

That is the purpose of CDs and IRAs, that is the money that they are supposed to lend out to people. In a commodity standard with full-reserve banking, it would be unnecessary for the average person to get a loan for much of anything. Only people looking to start businesses would need a loan. Also, the average person wouldn't even need a bank account, they would simply use the specie itself. Only the rich who have a lot of money to protect would need banks, and they would most likely deposit most of their money in IRAs and CDs.

Even loaning out CD's and IRA's inherently requires fractional reserve banking. Loaning them out brings banks down below full reserves compared to what they eventually owe others back. Sure, the deposits aren't on-demand, so they're guaranteed not to be taken out all at once and failure is much less likely, but they're still operating on a fractional reserve. Consider what happens when the bank's borrower defaults on a loan: Unless the bank required sufficient collateral (always a good idea), the bank would then permanently have lost some reserves. All loans inherently involve the risk that they will not be paid back, and that's why they bring in interest. This goes for loans banks make to businesses and people looking to buy a home (or anything else), and it goes just as much for CD's.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

The problem in letting banks do that is that it causes inflation, deflation, recession, and depression. This is why banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies. They produce money from thin air which will eventually lead to a loss of a lot of money, sending us into a deflationary depression.

Simple. You take the power away from banks. The end

[nate895]

I edited my post above to include more detail, so you might want to reread (I just noticed that you responded to an older version).

Anyway, I think you're missing the difference between the effect of commercial banks and central banks here. Fractional reserve banks do create periodic inflation and deflation of the credit supply, but unless a central bank is pumping "free" credit into the system (and/or taking it out), this process is entirely valid, and it's still not inflation of the base money supply. They're not creating money out of "thin air" like central banks do; rather, they're just loaning money they're borrowed themselves. There's the appearance that money has been created out of thin air, since people today have been defrauded into thinking that IOU's from banks (i.e. their bank deposits) are as good as cash...and because of that, you could say that money was created, since money is merely what people think it is. However, this false assumption that IOU's from banks are always as good as money is not a necessary or inevitable consequence of fractional reserve banking. After all, the only reason people accept bank deposit transfers as "real money" is by convention and misplaced trust. If fractional reserve banking were not so protected and guaranteed by the government as it is today, and if people were not defrauded into thinking it's entirely safe, people would most likely not consider credit (IOU's) to be as good as cold hard cash, like they do today. Once that psychological shift is made where people understand the difference between cash in hand and IOU's which can be defaulted on at any time, the effects of credit inflation and deflation become pretty immaterial. (Of course, it's quite a different story when a central bank can loan out money that did not even previously exist and they created out of thin air in the first place...and there's confusion between "real" money and "credit," since our supposedly "real" money is also CALLED credit, since it's a loan from the Federal Reserve...but despite the conflation of two types of credit into one word, there's still a difference.)

You are missing the entire period where we had the system you describe. It led to multiple crashes since banks would issue notes for 10x the amount of specie available for loans. From the period between 1836 and 1913, we were without a true central bank, and crashes occurred repeatedly due to the artificial creation of money. Any banknotes issued should be redeemable upon the date that it says on the note, and for every banknote issued, the bank should know that it can give out that money on the date it says, and if someone defaults on a loan, the bank should give over ownership of the loan to the people whose time deposits covered the loan.

[nate895]

Even loaning out CD's and IRA's inherently requires fractional reserve banking. Loaning them out brings banks down below full reserves compared to what they eventually owe others back. Sure, the deposits aren't on-demand, so they're guaranteed not to be taken out all at once and failure is much less likely, but they're still operating on a fractional reserve. Consider what happens when the bank's borrower defaults on a loan: Unless the bank required sufficient collateral (always a good idea), the bank would then permanently have lost some reserves. All loans inherently involve the risk that they will not be paid back, and that's why they bring in interest. This goes for loans banks make to businesses and people looking to buy a home (or anything else), and it goes just as much for CD's.

The whole purpose of those deposits is loans, it is a loan to the bank for the purpose of loaning it out to someone else. It isn't less than full reserve unless they don't have that money on the day the CD or IRA expires. If someone defaults on a loan, that is a risk that is inherent when you deposited your money in those variety of accounts, you should then receive ownership of the loan when the bank cannot pay you back, and you can either try to get the person to pay you back, or take possession of the collateral.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

The whole purpose of those deposits is loans, it is a loan to the bank for the purpose of loaning it out to someone else. It isn't less than full reserve unless they don't have that money on the day the CD or IRA expires.

What right does government have to do that? Do we insure grocery stores?

[nate895]

What right does government have to do that? Do we insure grocery stores?

I wasn't talking about insuring anyone. But when was the last time a grocery store sold more milk than what was in stock?

[Mini-Me]

The whole purpose of those deposits is loans, it is a loan to the bank for the purpose of loaning it out to someone else. It isn't less than full reserve unless they don't have that money on the day the CD or IRA expires. If someone defaults on a loan, that is a risk that is inherent when you deposited your money in those variety of accounts, you should then receive ownership of the loan when the bank cannot pay you back, and you can either try to get the person to pay you back, or take possession of the collateral.

I agree with you here, but that does not negate the fact that this is still technically a fractional reserve system. Similarly, just about everything you said can be applied equally to on-demand deposits.

You're right that some periodic crashes occurred in the economy during the 1800's, but compared to the 1900's, that economy had pretty slow and stable growth (ignoring the Civil War period). Like it or not, fractional reserve banking is fully compatible with free markets, and a truly free market actually cannot outlaw it, since it does not inherently rely on fraud (as I said, people's assumption that IOU's from banks are always as liquid as cash is a false one...and fraud is only occurring if they're being tricked into thinking this). If you believe that fractional reserve banking - a free market process - can cause undesirable long-term market outcomes, you must then consider whether each and every other free market process might also cause undesirable market outcomes and whether you should start intervening not just in one place but everywhere, like the Keynesians. ;)

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I wasn't talking about insuring anyone. But when was the last time a grocery store sold more milk than what was in stock?

Banks would not be able to loan more than what they have, but we have a government that GRANTS them the right to do so.

[nate895]

I agree with you here, but that does not negate the fact that this is still technically a fractional reserve system. Similarly, just about everything you said can be applied equally to on-demand deposits.

Full-reserve banking is the banking practice in which the full amount of each depositor's funds are available in reserve at the bank when each depositor has the legal right to withdraw them.

[Mini-Me]

Full-reserve banking is the banking practice in which the full amount of each depositor's funds are available in reserve at the bank when each depositor has the legal right to withdraw them.

And that can be negated by borrowers defaulting on bank loans. In this regard, there is nothing different in principle between loaning money from CD's and loaning on-demand deposits. The only real difference is that on-demand deposits are just much more likely to be taken out when the funds are not in reserve. It would certainly take a whole lot of defaults for the banks to have trouble repaying CD's as they come due, but it's always possible, because as I said, it's still an inherently fractional reserve system.

Saying that reserves are only fractional if the money doesn't exist to pay back a CD when it's due (which would only happen if ALL money is gone, just like with a bank run) is no different from saying reserves are "only fractional" if the money doesn't exist to pay back an on-demand deposit on the specific day a depositer chooses to take it out (the bank run)...since depositers always have the legal right to withdraw their deposits. In other words, you're arbitrarily applying different standards of what a "fractional reserve" means depending on whether you're dealing with CD's or on-demand deposits.

BTW, I'll copy this from my edit to my post above:

You're right that some periodic crashes occurred in the economy during the 1800's, but compared to the 1900's, that economy had pretty slow and stable growth (ignoring the Civil War period). Like it or not, fractional reserve banking is fully compatible with free markets, and a truly free market actually cannot outlaw it, since it does not inherently rely on fraud (as I said, people's assumption that IOU's from banks are always as liquid as cash is a false one...and fraud is only occurring if they're being tricked into thinking this). If you believe that fractional reserve banking - a free market process - can cause undesirable long-term market outcomes, you must then consider whether each and every other free market process might also cause undesirable market outcomes and whether you should start intervening not just in one place but everywhere, like the Keynesians.

People depositing their money in banks have every right not to deposit their money, and to instead put it in a safety deposit box or hide it under their mattresses. Depositing their money into a fractional reserve bank is a contract that indicates their willingness to let the bank lend their money out again...the choice is up to them, along with its risks. All that outlawing the lending of on-demand deposits does is say, "You common people are just too stupid to understand the risks of these kind of contracts, so as the Nanny State government, I'm going to save you from yourselves and make it illegal for you to enter them." In addition, outlawing fractional reserves altogether also inherently outlaws the lending of CD's (as mentioned above) because of the possibility that reserves might "become" fractional according to your definition (exactly like with on-demand deposits).

[lucius]

So you are opposed to them taking advantage of morons? If a moron wants to get a loan at a ridiculous rate, what business is it of ours, and why are the Jews evil because of it...

No, that's not it. You posted this:


In Judaism, usury, and in fact all lending and borrowing of money, is banned as well.

Your statement is not true...The exacting of interest on a loan to a fellow countryman is forbidden, but it is permitted to strangers (*Deuteronomy 23:20-21)



...Jews evil because of it. I am sick of this Jewish conspiracy crap....

Don't paint with a broad brush: Jews won't do. This is the product of inherent racism contained in the creed of supremacism by a tiny sect who are the keeper of the "the traditions" and of the oral Law, ie. Talmud/ Kabbalah. The line of descent is from the Levites in Babylon, through the Pharisees in Jerusalem, through the Talmudists of Spain and the rabbis of Russia, to the Zionists of today. Too bad that world Jewry wrongfully bears the brunt of retaliations for the actions of this tiny sect.

True Torah Jews Against Zionism: http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/

Zionism: The Real Enemy Of The Jews: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7144824386679216957&ei=TJPySNjPCZCYrAKhtozrDg&q=alan+hart&hl=en



...The Jews are a tribe that number at around 20 million, and if they were all involved in some conspiracy, someone would have said something.

Once again, you paint with too broad of a brush, but have you ever heard of Benjamin Freedman, listen to his words: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5224839731207532170&ei=ApPySJD6NIL8rAL_2MXqDg&q=Benjamin+Freedman&hl=en

[Conza88]

I used to think this was a plausible answer... but thats because of was ignorant of what interest really was.

Irwin Schiff - How an economy grows... check it out, you'll understand.

[nate895]

No, that's not it. You posted this:



Your statement is not true...The exacting of interest on a loan to a fellow countryman is forbidden, but it is permitted to strangers (*Deuteronomy 23:20-21)




Don't paint with a broad brush: Jews won't do. This is the product of inherent racism contained in the creed of supremacism by a tiny sect who are the keeper of the "the traditions" and of the oral Law, ie. Talmud/ Kabbalah. The line of descent is from the Levites in Babylon, through the Pharisees in Jerusalem, through the Talmudists of Spain and the rabbis of Russia, to the Zionists of today. Too bad that world Jewry wrongfully bears the brunt of retaliations for the actions of this tiny sect.

True Torah Jews Against Zionism: http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/

Zionism: The Real Enemy Of The Jews: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7144824386679216957&ei=TJPySNjPCZCYrAKhtozrDg&q=alan+hart&hl=en




Once again, you paint with too broad of a brush, but have you ever heard of Benjamin Freedman, listen to his words: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5224839731207532170&ei=ApPySJD6NIL8rAL_2MXqDg&q=Benjamin+Freedman&hl=en

The Kabbalah is a secretive cult of mysteries among the high Rabbis, and that is what it traditionally has been since the since the time of the Kingdom of Israel. They might be engaged in some conspiracy, but we don't know, but the Kabbalah in and of itself is supposed to be the people who hold the true knowledge of the Lord and know everything there is to know about God. It is exclusive to the Levites of the highest order, and no one else.

[nate895]

And that can be negated by borrowers defaulting on bank loans. In this regard, there is nothing different in principle between loaning money from CD's and loaning on-demand deposits. The only real difference is that on-demand deposits are just much more likely to be taken out when the funds are not in reserve. It would certainly take a whole lot of defaults for the banks to have trouble repaying CD's as they come due, but it's always possible, because as I said, it's still an inherently fractional reserve system.

Saying that reserves are only fractional if the money doesn't exist to pay back a CD when it's due (which would only happen if ALL money is gone, just like with a bank run) is no different from saying reserves are "only fractional" if the money doesn't exist to pay back an on-demand deposit on the specific day a depositer chooses to take it out (the bank run)...since depositers always have the legal right to withdraw their deposits. In other words, you're arbitrarily applying different standards of what a "fractional reserve" means depending on whether you're dealing with CD's or on-demand deposits.

BTW, I'll copy this from my edit to my post above:

You're right that some periodic crashes occurred in the economy during the 1800's, but compared to the 1900's, that economy had pretty slow and stable growth (ignoring the Civil War period). Like it or not, fractional reserve banking is fully compatible with free markets, and a truly free market actually cannot outlaw it, since it does not inherently rely on fraud (as I said, people's assumption that IOU's from banks are always as liquid as cash is a false one...and fraud is only occurring if they're being tricked into thinking this). If you believe that fractional reserve banking - a free market process - can cause undesirable long-term market outcomes, you must then consider whether each and every other free market process might also cause undesirable market outcomes and whether you should start intervening not just in one place but everywhere, like the Keynesians.

People depositing their money in banks have every right not to deposit their money, and to instead put it in a safety deposit box or hide it under their mattresses. Depositing their money into a fractional reserve bank is a contract that indicates their willingness to let the bank lend their money out again...the choice is up to them, along with its risks. All that outlawing the lending of on-demand deposits does is say, "You common people are just too stupid to understand the risks of these kind of contracts, so as the Nanny State government, I'm going to save you from yourselves and make it illegal for you to enter them." In addition, outlawing fractional reserves altogether also inherently outlaws the lending of CD's (as mentioned above) because of the possibility that reserves might "become" fractional according to your definition (exactly like with on-demand deposits).

The economy, if taken as a whole, has grown at a relatively steady pace since the depression. It has had the same ups and downs as the 1800s.

As I said, you can make certain with a CD that in the contract it states that it is possible they cannot pay you back due to a default, if that is the case, the customer should get back the collateral or any money received from the collateral by the bank. The odds of a default are small, we have a less than ten percent default rate today with everyone having mounds of credit, if only the most qualified got loans, the default rate would drop to almost zero. This is one of the two regulations I am in favor of, the other being the necessity to publicize all the contents of a product (I support that one due to allergy purposes, as well as boycotting purposes). The banks should hold full reserves for on demand deposits, and if they can't meet them, they should pay the consequences. Since their operations could cause financial meltdown, the bank operators who couldn't pay back their on demand depositors should wind up in prison for a long time.

[lucius]

The Kabbalah is a secretive cult of mysteries among the high Rabbis, and that is what it traditionally has been since the since the time of the Kingdom of Israel. They might be engaged in some conspiracy, but we don't know, but the Kabbalah in and of itself is supposed to be the people who hold the true knowledge of the Lord and know everything there is to know about God. It is exclusive to the Levites of the highest order, and no one else.

How about this?

Kabbalah: The sacred books of black magic of orthodox Judaism which form a large part of the basis of the western secret societies, from Rosicrucianism to Freemasonry and the OTO (Ordo Templi Orientis). Kabbalism is itself derived from the sorcery of ancient Babylon and Babylon's progenitor, Pharaonic Egypt.

p. 146, ‘Blood on the Altar’ by Craig Heimbichner

[Mini-Me]

The economy, if taken as a whole, has grown at a relatively steady pace since the depression. It has had the same ups and downs as the 1800s.

The economy during the 1800's had its ups and downs, but it didn't have the booms and busts of the 20th century. This is because the credit cycle in a free banking system does not create gigantic booms and busts by itself; rather, the booms and busts are caused by a surge of money being created out of thin air and then suddenly fed into the credit cycle. For one thing, Civil War aside, the money supply and nominal commodity prices were relatively constant over the long term throughout the 19th century. In fact, I shouldn't even say that: There was a general deflationary trend, despite the presence of fractional reserve banking! According to the calculator here (http://www.measuringworth.com/ppowerus/?redirurl=calculators/ppowerus/), $2159.81 today buys as much as $100 did in 1913. In comparison, $78.88 from 1913 bought as much as $100 did in 1800. In other words, it is not fractional reserve banking, but fiat currency, the Federal Reserve, and their financing of the growing US budget that is responsible for the inflation we've seen this century.



As I said, you can make certain with a CD that in the contract it states that it is possible they cannot pay you back due to a default, if that is the case, the customer should get back the collateral or any money received from the collateral by the bank. The odds of a default are small, we have a less than ten percent default rate today with everyone having mounds of credit, if only the most qualified got loans, the default rate would drop to almost zero. This is one of the two regulations I am in favor of, the other being the necessity to publicize all the contents of a product (I support that one due to allergy purposes, as well as boycotting purposes). The banks should hold full reserves for on demand deposits, and if they can't meet them, they should pay the consequences. Since their operations could cause financial meltdown, the bank operators who couldn't pay back their on demand depositors should wind up in prison for a long time.

You can make certain with on-demand deposits, just like with a CD, that in the contract it states that you will receive collateral back in the event of a default. Once again, there's no reason why anything you're saying about CD's does not apply equally to on-demand deposits. As I said in my last post:

All that outlawing the lending of on-demand deposits does is say, "You common people are just too stupid to understand the risks of these kind of contracts, so as the Nanny State government, I'm going to save you from yourselves and make it illegal for you to enter them."
If bank operators can't pay back their on-demand depositers, the consequences should be the same as whenever anyone else fails to uphold their end of a contract or defaults on payment of a loan. This is no different, but here you are talking about essentially throwing bank operators into debtor's prison. :rolleyes:

Also, I should respond to your support of another regulation, as well: Regulation is simply required for food companies to publish the contents of a product, and it's actually counterproductive, as I'll explain in a second. Besides, it's up to consumers to decide whether they want to buy mystery food or if they want to buy only that food which clearly lists ingredients and allergens. Anyway, there are two major reasons why it's better NOT to have this regulation:
First of all, making this a legal requirement is just an easy way for big companies to block the smallest companies from even entering the market whatsoever.
Second, listing ingredients would be an obvious competitive advantage anyway, because it's something that a LOT of people care about (and obviously, listing false ingredients would constitute fraud). Have you ever heard of kosher certification? Practically nobody gives a crap about kosher compared to the number of people who care about food ingredients and food safety (which is absolutely everyone), but there are still tons of private kosher certification agencies that companies try to get approval from so they can put it on their food labels as a selling point. Their standards are actually so high that companies with certified kosher products often don't even have to pass federal inspection, because the government knows that their standards of food safety pale in comparison to the kosher certification agencies. Private food health and safety certification would become a huge industry in the absence of both the FDA and ingredient requirements. Because certification agencies would be competing with each other, they'd probably require companies to put more and more information on their labels to earn certification anyway, and the amount of information you receive about your food would be greater than what the government would require. In other words, regulating a requirement like this "sets the bar low," so to speak. Similarly, if a particular food (or drug) was ever unsafe, the food and drug safety agency that certified it could be successfully held accountable by consumers...unlike, say, the FDA, which is an invincible and corrupt government bureaucracy that has no financial incentive to make the right decisions.

[orafi]

How much will it cost for me to buy 21 virgins?

Only your life and the life of one or more zionists.

[Mini-Me]

Only your life and the life of one or more zionists.

Or Shiites/Sunnis, depending on which side of the family feud you're playing on. (Sorry, I know that was mean...but I couldn't resist...)

[orafi]

Or Shiites/Sunnis, depending on which side of the family feud you're playing on. (Sorry, I know that was mean...but I couldn't resist...)

:eek: yeah

t he whole 72 virgins thing is a fabrication anyway. (sucks for those who actually took the offer)

[fedup100]

The State of Texas higher court just upheld Sharia law in the State of Texas..........the ussa is doomed!

[lucius]

This was 1991 US Federal Law. Our tax dollars at work:

Public Law 102-14, H.J. Res 104
102nd Congress of the United States of America
March 5, 1991

Whereas Congress recognizes the historical tradition of eithical values and principles which are the basis of civilized society and upon which our great Nation was founded;

Whereas these ethical values and principles have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization, when they were known as the Seven Noahide Laws;

Whereas without these ethical values and principles the edifice of civilization stands in serious peril of returning to chaos;

Whereas society is profoundly concerned with the recent weakening of these principles that has resulted in crises that beleaguer and threaten the fabric of civilized society;

Whereas the justified preoccupation with these crises must not let the citizens of this Nation lose sight of their responsibility to transmit these historical ethical values from our distinguished past to the generations of the future;

Whereas the Lubavitch movement has fostered and promoted these ethical values and principles throughout the world;

Whereas Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, leader of the Lubavitch movement, is universally respected and revered and his eighty-ninth birthday falls on March 26, 1991;

Whereas in tribute to this great spiritual leader, `the rebbe,' this, his ninetieth year will be seen as one of `education and giving,' the year in which we turn to education and charity to return the world to the moral and ethical values contained in the Seven Noahide Laws; and

Whereas this will be reflected in an international scroll of honor signed by the President of the United States and other heads of state: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That March 26, 1991, the start of the ninetieth year of Rabbi Menachem Schneerson, leader of the worldwide Lubavitch movement, is designated as `Education Day, U.S.A.'. The President is requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe such day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.http://web.archive.org/web/20000516154848/http:/www.noahide.com/congress.htm

When Schneerson died in 1994, he was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal for his contribution to "global morals." Here is one of his pearls of wisdom:

"The Rebbe's stance (Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson), therefore, is clear: The Holocaust was a good thing because it lopped off a disease-ravaged limb of the Jewish people--in other words, the millions who perished in the Holocaust--in order to cleanse the Jewish people of its sins (cf. Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, Mada Ve'emuna, Machon Lubacitch, 1980, Kfar Chabad).

It appears that the zionist rabbis have little regards for the am ha'aretz, the Judaics who reject the Oral law/Traditions of the Elders.

Sweet man...

True Torah Jews Against Zionism: http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/

[constituent]

The Jews are a tribe

no "they" aren't.