Deregulating the banks?

[Steven Douglas]

Government has no business running banks or anything else, actually.

Apologies for calling you Roy, then. That is definitely a thing he would never, ever write.

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Grain has intrinsic properties that make it valuable to people (it's edible and tastes good).

Gold has intrinsic properties that make it valuable to people (it's scarce, divisible, visibly attractive, doesn't oxidize, conducts electricity, etc.)

Gold and grain are valued by people for their intrinsic properties. They do not have intrinsic value to themselves. How much people value those properties, relative to the intrinsic properties of other items, may change over time, depending on people's needs and wants.

Yes, gold has always been valued by people. But people determine the value based on their desire for its properties, the value is not intrinsic to gold. For example, let's say today you could trade 1 ounce of gold for either 10 barrels of oil or 20 bushels of grain. A year from now there is a massive famine. A year from now you could still trade 1 ounce of gold for 10 barrels of oil, but 1 ounce of gold only can purchase 1/2 of a bushel of grain. It's the intrinsic properties that people desire, in this case, something edible, which give things value.

+1

People take the "intrinsic value" argument completely out of context & conflate "value" & "intrinsic value"
Not everything has "value" because it's a subjective concept while anything that gets it's value out of its properties (as opposed to government decree) has "intrinsic value"

You aren't going to find anyone to admit to being a Keynesian on this forum. And since I think almost everyone on the forum sees the major difference between Austrian and Chicago as the existence of a central bank inflating the currency, you aren't going to find any anyone willing to claim that label, either.

That being said, there are some people here who do want state intervention in the economy. A few people want the government to inflate the currency, rather than a bank (don't ask why they think that will make a difference), and a few more want things like high import tariffs. Both positions are a minority view.

So why do they think that that will make a difference? Do they think that honest, uncorrupt, angelic politicians & bureaucrats won't abuse the money-issuing power as opposed to evil banksters?
This is being peddled by people who are trying to nudge people towards communism/socialism & by giving them a little bit of truth about Fed & the monetary system Centralization of credit in the hands of the State is one of the planks on communist-manifesto

Apologies for calling you Roy, then. That is definitely a thing he would never, ever write.

May be not but he's just as self-righteous & thinks that anyone that can't see his "self-evident & objective truth" is either an idiot, evil or has a "crackpot economic theory"

[Travlyr]

Government has no business running banks or anything else, actually.

Governments don't run banks. Governments get their authority from ratified constitutions. That, along with legally ratified amendments, is all the authority they possess.

Quote only the constitution or legally ratified amendments to prove that governments have the authority to own a bank. I have not been able to find where they got their authority.

BTW... I do know that TV, radio, government school teachers, and 99% of the people believe that governments run banks. That is irrelevant to me. What I am asking for is legally documented proof of their authority.

BTW II... it is my opinion that banks run governments illegally. That the bankers took over the United States government in a coup in 1861 starting with paper money and war.

Just because they did it does not mean they had the legal authority to do it. The Khazars have taken over governments all over the world for centuries.

What I am asking for is: "Why do you believe that governments run banks?" Just because TV says it? Or is there a basis in fact?

[Paul Or Nothing II]

I disagree. We need to regulate the banks.

So you think Ron Paul is an idiot & has no clue about economics or governance???

And by the way, whom are expecting to "regulate"? Politicians & bureaucrats, right? Yeah, that always works out well you know because it's not like they're self-interested or anything, I mean politicians & bureaucrats are usually so honest, wise & uncorrupt, aren't they?

If you have a little time then read my post on the first page of this thread, the whole mess was caused by GOVERNMENT & OVER-REGULATION

The black guy @4:00 keeps saying "but but regulation", "but but the derivatives" & Ron shuts him every time by bringing the issue back to government & over-regulation & Fed; he was expecting Paul to say that he'll "regulate" or ban the derivatives but obviously he doesn't understand what caused the problem & where Paul is coming from

[WilliamC]

That was a good interview for Ron Paul, but the interviewers were just bone-headed stupid or deceptively lying greedy cheats.

Ron Paul repeatedly says that "debt must be liquidated", which is to say that lot's and lot's of creditors will lose lot's and lot's of future income (and quite possibly go bankrupt) since the debt they hold is worthless and they refuse to admit it.

The reporters and politicians and wealthy know the problems we are in and Ron Paul's solution pretty well, even if the average voter has little clue about what inflation and fiat currency really does to society. But these and most reporters and the people who pay them know it would cost them their wealth, power, prestige and lifestyle to actually return to a sound money system with the necessary changes in government that must come with this. That's why they are not only opposed to him, but they are so opposed to him that they will go to any lengths, including lies and violence, to keep him from gaining a wider audience.

In how many interviews has the media been willing to lie about Ron Paul's positions, even to his face as reporters often do when they deliberately misinterpret what Ron Paul has just said to them and come back with a falsely premised, baited question. That's why most politicians including Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum would all rather the Republican Party lose in 2012 rather than have Ron Paul win.

And whether or not most of the electorate is simply too ignorant or too stupidly greedy to figure out they are and have been being stolen from for damn near 100 years now is up for question, I tend to think it's ignorance myself 'cause if it's stupidity and greed then America will fall. Soon.

It's either hyperinflation or liquidation, I really don't see any other long-term alternatives. Hyperinflation wipes out the middle class and makes them all poor, liquidation wipes out the entrenched empowered elite and those living off of government handouts but restores a vibrant, economically growing middle class in which motivated and talented individuals can become wealthy, which is the essence of the American Dream.

[Travlyr]

Well said, WilliamC. We are nearing critical mass. There is no stopping us now. Even if they don't let Ron Paul be president... onward and forward.

[Black Flag]

Apologies for calling you Roy, then. That is definitely a thing he would never, ever write.

Accepted, especially now I've "met" this Roy ...egads!

[Black Flag]

Governments don't run banks.

Gads!

OF COURSE THEY DO!

It is the fundamental of every government to hold tight its grip on the heart of the economy. They command control over 1/2 of every transaction - the money - for a reason.

Governments get their authority from ratified constitutions. That, along with legally ratified amendments, is all the authority they possess.

hahahhahahhaha

No, they get it from the point of a gun.

Quote only the constitution or legally ratified amendments to prove that governments have the authority to own a bank. I have not been able to find where they got their authority.

....called a gun.

It is a serious mistake to believe you can control the provider of violence by trying to bury him in paperwork.

"Why do you believe that governments run banks?" Just because TV says it? Or is there a basis in fact?

Fact.

[Travlyr]

Gads!

OF COURSE THEY DO!

It is the fundamental of every government to hold tight its grip on the heart of the economy. They command control over 1/2 of every transaction - the money - for a reason.


hahahhahahhaha

No, they get it from the point of a gun.



....called a gun.

It is a serious mistake to believe you can control the provider of violence by trying to bury him in paperwork.



Fact.

That's what I thought. Nobody has been able to provide evidence that governments run banks. It is generally accepted, but it is not a fact. It is misguided. The theme is that governments are bad when, in fact, it is not the government that is the source of violence... it is the lack of government.

[Travlyr]

In other words, when we enforce the rule of law, then the tyrannical police state ends.