Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 60 of 60

Thread: Obstacles to Clear Thinking About 'the Economy'

  1. #31
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    1,125
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    osan writes: "Perhaps you need to acquire a copy of Bouvier's law dictionary."

    (...good point...mea culpa...what i should have written was "'money' is not defined in the federal reserve act or the US code"...

    ...i'll cut to the quick and reveal to you that i believe 'money'--for a very long time (in 'civilization')---is that thing/those things that 'the government with jurisdiction' requires that people use to: pay taxes, use in courts at law, use as a 'unit of account', etc...this 'forced usage' creates the demand and 'near-universal acceptability' of WHATEVER 'they' deem/assign as 'the legal tender' (money)...whether it be gold and silver, or the bronze 'nomisma' used by ancient romans, tobacco used by early american colonists, or the 'federal reserve notes' and tokens we use today, etc. ad nauseam...

    ..i sense you may be a gold/silver 'metalist'...hopefully without sounding too 'greenie weinie': it seems to me an awful abuse of mother earth to rip her apart and lace her with cyanide, etc., in order to merely conduct an increase in the 'money supply'...(..don't eat the rainbows in the animas river...)...and the poisonous insanity will linger long LONG after the gold-bug rush...

    osan writes: But were actual money to be used in lieu of arbitrary currency, the issues listed would become very difficult to make real, [if] not impossible.



    (..is this a 'theory'? ..please provide a real example of the 'metalist' society so-blessed..)



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by H. E. Panqui View Post
    osan writes: "Perhaps you need to acquire a copy of Bouvier's law dictionary."

    (...good point...mea culpa...what i should have written was "'money' is not defined in the federal reserve act or the US code"...

    ...i'll cut to the quick and reveal to you that i believe 'money'--for a very long time (in 'civilization')---is that thing/those things that 'the government with jurisdiction' requires that people use to: pay taxes, use in courts at law, use as a 'unit of account', etc...this 'forced usage' creates the demand and 'near-universal acceptability' of WHATEVER 'they' deem/assign as 'the legal tender' (money)...whether it be gold and silver, or the bronze 'nomisma' used by ancient romans, tobacco used by early american colonists, or the 'federal reserve notes' and tokens we use today, etc. ad nauseam...


    This is partly true, but not universally so. Money is money, whether fiat or otherwise. There is nothing wrong with fiat money. All "fiat" does to modify "money" is to impart the fact that someone claiming authority has mandated its use as legal tender. Fiat currency that is not money, OTOH, can and pretty much universally has been a big problem in the longer term for every nation that has adopted its use.

    ..i sense you may be a gold/silver 'metalist'...hopefully without sounding too 'greenie weinie': it seems to me an awful abuse of mother earth to rip her apart and lace her with cyanide, etc., in order to merely conduct an increase in the 'money supply'...(..don't eat the rainbows in the animas river...)...and the poisonous insanity will linger long LONG after the gold-bug rush...
    Cyanide is decidedly not the problem in the gold mining industry.

    osan writes: But were actual money to be used in lieu of arbitrary currency, the issues listed would become very difficult to make real, [if] not impossible.



    (..is this a 'theory'? ..please provide a real example of the 'metalist' society so-blessed..)
    Byzantine Empire thrived for about 900 years in economic terms with virtually rock-steady economic conditions where the money was concerned. It was not until the MONEY was debased piecemeal that economic problems began to manifest. It is a classic textbook example of the value of gold and silver as real-deal, no-shyte "money".

    The Roman Empire is yet another example. They were humming along fairly merrily until someone discovered that if they debased the coin by 10%, they had 10% more "money" than before and nobody was the wiser. Had they stopped there, things would perhaps had worked out. However, people being what they are, they could not help themselves and debased the coin further. Then they did it again and again and again until there was all manner of currency with little or no value. Bye bye evil empire.

    This is no theory. This is economic historical fact and it can be deduced a priori due precisely to the nature of these things.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    1,125
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    osan writes: "..Money is money, whether fiat or otherwise. There is nothing wrong with fiat money. All "fiat" does to modify "money" is to impart the fact that someone claiming authority has mandated its use as legal tender. Fiat currency that is not money, OTOH, can and pretty much universally has been a big problem in the longer term for every nation that has adopted its use..."



    (...you've obviously done lots of reading and thinking about this $ubject...as you know, 'we' (de jure) 'declared' (by 'fiat') gold/silver/copper 'as money' with art. 1, sec. 8, clause 5 of the con. and the act of ?1792...the creation of 'the treasury'...i believe this is evidence that at least some of 'our founding fathers' envisioned that 'the government' was to use gold/silver/copper in it's dealing$...while the rest of us were free to use what we wanted...of course, 'taxation,' etc. forced usage scheme$, works to herd us all into 'their [stinking] system'..

    osan: The Byzantine Empire thrived for about 900 years in economic terms with virtually rock-steady economic conditions where the money was concerned. It was not until the MONEY was debased piecemeal that economic problems began to manifest. It is a classic textbook example of the value of gold and silver as real-deal, no-shyte "money".



    (yikes!..you have to go back to, of all empires, 'the byzantine'..there's a great joke somewhere there for nerdy monetary historians ...i believe you have been influenced by some gold-bug 'ooga-booga'....i believe 'land' and the resources 'contained' (including gold..btw imo, 'healthy living soil' is MUCH more 'valuable' than mere 'barbarous gold') and 'applied human technology' are the sole sources of what you term 'value'...remember, 'value' is subjective...what's the 'value' of a glass of water when you live on a clear cool mountain stream vs. that same water (warm, with a little mud mixed in) if you're stranded in some roasting desert?

    ...btw, steve zarlenga (the world's foremost monetary historian---if you know of a better one please name) has offered us this:

    http://www.monetary.org/a-refutation-of-mengers-theory-of-the-%E2%80%9Corigin-of-money%E2%80%9D/2010/12 (sorry about this link...search 'zarlenga refutation of menger's theory'..it's 20 pages long so i won't paste it all here)

    SUMMARY
    We have called Menger’s theory on the origin of money into question on methodological , rational, factual, and anthropological grounds.
    We have shown that he proceeded using only deductive logic, and have noted the problems with doing so.
    On rational grounds, we have shown a circularity of his reasoning in his determinations of liquidity, and have called into question his use of liquidity rather than volatility as the primary factor determining the evolving of money, even within his system.
    On factual grounds, we have shown that some of his closely held general views of gold and silver money are incorrect, and we have presented and referred to factual evidence which indicates an alternative (and more probable) path to the development of money.
    Stephen A. Zarlenga
    Director, American Monetary Institute
    Last edited by H. E. Panqui; 03-30-2016 at 07:03 AM.

  6. #34
    Chester Copperpot
    Member

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Let me ask again - how do these private banks "create" money?
    really? we're going to go there again? on this forum??? and youre not a paid blogger for anybody right??? ok gotcha

  7. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by H. E. Panqui View Post
    osan writes: "..Money is money, whether fiat or otherwise. There is nothing wrong with fiat money. All "fiat" does to modify "money" is to impart the fact that someone claiming authority has mandated its use as legal tender. Fiat currency that is not money, OTOH, can and pretty much universally has been a big problem in the longer term for every nation that has adopted its use..."



    (...you've obviously done lots of reading and thinking about this $ubject...as you know, 'we' (de jure) 'declared' (by 'fiat') gold/silver/copper 'as money' with art. 1, sec. 8, clause 5 of the con. and the act of ?1792...the creation of 'the treasury'...i believe this is evidence that at least some of 'our founding fathers' envisioned that 'the government' was to use gold/silver/copper in it's dealing$...while the rest of us were free to use what we wanted...of course, 'taxation,' etc. forced usage scheme$, works to herd us all into 'their [stinking] system'..


    You take "fiat" too narrowly in the context of what I wrote.

    That said, declaring this or that as money is no problem IMO, so long as one is not constrained to use only that as so-called "legal tender". The implication would be that barter, for example, was not legally permitted.

    Better than issuing fiat declaring this or that to be the coin of the realm, I say allow people the freedom to make the determination. Circumstance will often shift the definition of what constitutes money at a given time. Gold/silver are great media when times are prosperous, but when food becomes hard to come by, edibles may become far more valuable than those metals. Therefore, the markets should be free to make the determinations. Your point on taxation is well taken and I agree. This is yet another point against fiat currency because as you imply, it allows Themme to force you to participate in their game, at least to that degree. That is not hallmark of a free land, but rather very much the opposite. Hell, even the despot kings of yore allowed their serfs to pay with chickens and grain in the absence of hard cash. Think about that awhile and the raging tyranny that America has been almost since inception comes into sharper focus.


    (yikes!..you have to go back to, of all empires, 'the byzantine'..there's a great joke somewhere there for nerdy monetary historians ...i believe you have been influenced by some gold-bug 'ooga-booga'
    Believe as you will, of course, but you asked for an example and I provided two. These are historical fact that will not change with alterations of your own beliefs. Gold and silver work. Are there alternatives that may work as well? Bitcoins, in theory. The crux of a monetary system lies in the supply. If supply is managed competently and honestly (note that both conditions are necessary), even "worthless" paper like the FRN can function admirably as a medium of exchange... absent the debt-interest characteristic, of course. But people are reliably incompetent and dishonest. Therefore, gold and silver offer the greatest obstacles against the brands of dishonesty and incompetence that have historically driven nation after empire into the dust. Perfect? No. But a damned sight better than anything else, save possibly bitcoins; but software is very risky in terms of the brands of reliability that come into question here. I would add that if someone figures a way to counterfeit bitcoins and is in the least manner intelligent, they will say nothing. If the world became bitcoin-dependent, such a development could reduce entire economies to wrack and ruin. This is why I am luke warm on the reality of the bitcoin, though the general idea is really good. And before the bitcoiners go all apey on me about how it is impossible to break the security, remember that I have a background in encryption and know better. "NP-complete" != "impossible", but merely "almost impossibly unlikely". I will add that as quantum computing becomes real, chances appear at this time that all extant encryption technologies stand to go obsolete almost over night... at least if what I read about it is fact, which I cannot at this time verify to be the case, so do not quote me on that point.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  8. #36
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    1,125
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Quote Originally Posted by Chester Copperpot View Post
    really? we're going to go there again? on this forum??? and you're [zippy] not a paid blogger for anybody right??? ok gotcha


    (...monetary ignorance is WIDESPREAD...i've found that even (maybe even 'especially') the 'well-educated,' 'high iq' people are almost universally WORSE THAN butt-ignorant as to even the basic origin and nature of one 'dollar'...despite their gobs frequently foaming about 'the illion dollar economy'...politicians (ALL of them) are the worst...blow-dried poodles yacking about 'the free market economy' 'the 20 trillion dollar debt,' etc. ad nau$eam, absent a stinking clue...

    ...no honest monetary realist could, for one example, talk about 'the 20 trillion dollar debt' without condemning-- VERY VERY LOUDLY AND FREQUENTLY--the fraudulent 'debt-that-ought-not-to-be-debt'...(i.e. the interest owed to banksters who acquired US government bonds [etc. ad nauseam] through their stinking privilege of 'deposit creation'...

    ...(the term 'deposit creation' is one of the MANY concept$ that causes the brow of the republicrat to furrow..

    ...as for ALL the politicians and their most ardent cheerleaders....apparently: not a stinking peep!...not a stinking clue!...not a stinking one of them!!...
    Last edited by H. E. Panqui; 04-01-2016 at 06:31 AM.

  9. #37
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    1,125
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    panqui wrote: (yikes!..you have to go back to, of all empires, 'the byzantine'..there's a great joke somewhere there for nerdy monetary historians ...i believe you have been influenced by some gold-bug 'ooga-booga'


    Osan responds: "Believe as you will, of course, but you asked for an example and I provided two. These are historical fact that will not change with alterations of your own beliefs. Gold and silver work...Therefore, gold and silver offer the greatest obstacles against the brands of dishonesty and incompetence that have historically driven nation after empire into the dust....Perfect? No. But a damned sight better than anything else, save possibly bitcoins....



    ...that 'gold and silver' 'worked' for that byzantine or roman ruling class (the slave and eunuch-owning class) who possessed 'the gold and silver' is no great revelation...as to any notion that 'a gold-based money system' brings 'truth,' 'honesty,' 'goodness,' etc., to society...well...ooga freaking booga, gold bugs!!......?maybe you ought to put on the sandals of the byzantine slaves, eunuchs, roman catholics, etc. relatively 'gold-less' byzantines...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaver...zantine_Empire

    Source of slaves[edit]

    A main source of slave were prisoners of war, of which there was a great profit to be made.[2] The Skylitzes Chronicle mentions that after the Battle of Adrassos many prisoners of war were sent to Constantinople. They were so numerous that they filled all the mansions and rural regions.[3] Most of the menials in large Byzantine homes were slaves and were very numerous. Danelis of Patras, a wealthy widow in the 9th century, gave a gift of 3,000 slaves to Emperor Basil I.[4] The eunuch Basil, chancellor during the reign of Basil II, was said to have owned 3,000 slaves and retainers.[5] Some slaves worked the landed estates of their masters, which declined in later ages.
    A medieval Arab historian estimates that 200,000 women and children were taken as slaves after the Byzantine reconquest of Crete from the Muslims.[5] Yet parents, living in the Byzantine empire, were forced to sell their children to pay their debts, which Byzantine laws unsuccessfully tried to prevent.[2] After the 10th century the major source of slaves were often Slavs and Bulgars,[6] which resulted from campaigns in the Balkans and lands north of the Black Sea.[1] At the eastern shore of the Adriatic Many Slav slaves were exported to other parts of Europe.[1]Slaves were one of the main articles that Russian (often Vikings) traders dealt in their yearly visit toConstantinople. After the 12th century, the old Greek word "δοῦλος" (doulos) obtained a synonym in "σκλάβος" (sklavos),[7] perhaps derived from the same root as "Slav".
    Social life[edit]

    Slavery was mostly an urban phenomenon with most of the slaves working in households.[8] The "Farmers Law" of the 7th/8th centuries and the 10th century "Book of the Prefect" deals with slavery.[9] Slaves were not allowed to marry until it was legalized by an emperor in 1095. However; they did not gain freedom if they did. The children of slaves remained slaves even if the father was their master. Many of the slaves became drafted in the army.
    Eunuchs[edit]

    Eunuchs were a special group among the slaves. Young boys were castrated before or after puberty and used as eunuchs. Castration was outlawed but the law was poorly enforced. They were imported and exported to the empire by traders. Eunuchs became very popular at some times, could rise to high posts and fetch high prices.[9] In rich Byzantine families they were accepted as part of the household. Eunuchs played an important role in the Byzantine palace and court.

    Last edited by H. E. Panqui; 04-07-2016 at 10:50 AM.

  10. #38
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    1,125
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    ....alas, it appears many people have fallen for some 'ludwig gold-bug-fever theories'....rather than hi$toric realities...

    ...the great monetary historian, alexander del mar, is widely attributed with the following bit of 'historic reality':...

    "...what is commonly understood as money has always consisted, tangibly, of a number of pieces of some material, marked by public authority and named or understood in the laws or customs: that its palpable characteristic was its mark of authority; its essential characteristic, the possession of value, defined by law; and its function, the legal power to pay debts and taxes and the mechanical power to facilitate the exchange of other objects possessing value..."

    ...sadly, i still see republicrat knuckleheads ignorantly referring to non-gold/silver money as 'fiat'... (hint for republicrat monetary newbies, gold buggers and other assorted money dummies: MOST/ALL 'money' is/has been declared 'money' 'BY FIAT'...including your mythical/mystical gold/silver!!!..

  11. #39
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/pascalem.../#53b01cdc61e5

    All Money Is Fiat Money

    It’s important to understand how money works, and it’s counterintuitive. One aspect which is missed in the debate between commodity-backed currencies and fiat currency, that is to say currency which is not backed by a commodity or anything else, is the fact that all currencies are really fiat currencies*.

    Nothing illustrates this better than this story in New York Magazine that reports that Tide detergent has become a black-market currency in the drug trade.

    It’s become a meme in pop culture that cigarettes are often used as currency in prison (I have no idea whether this is still in fact true). We all instinctually understand how a cigarette-based currency system would work, right: people would mass cigarettes, use them as a medium of exchange and store of value, etc., but we don’t think about the implication.

    In both cases, what makes Tide detergent, or cigarettes, or the US dollar, or Bitcoin, or whatever, a currency, is simply common agreement that these an item of currency is valuable. What makes it possible to buy drugs with Tide is not because Tide is useful as a detergent. It’s because drug dealers and users have agreed that it is currency.

    This is, of course, equally true of gold. Gold’s uses in industry are marginal to its appeal. What makes gold valuable is that we’ve all agreed since time immemorial that it’s valuable.

    Switching to a gold-backed currency regime does not mean switching away from fiat currency, it means switching to a fiat currency system where the money supply is linked to a commodity.

    This is one of those things where our instincts fight our good sense. We want to believe things have intrinsic value, whereas value in a marketplace is determined by supply and demand, not anything intrinsic. It’s scary to think that the US dollar is backed by “nothing”, until you realize that any currency system is backed by “nothing”, or rather by the same thing, which is a common agreement to use the currency.

    (* Actually, properly understood, no currencies are “fiat” currencies, since the word “fiat” refers to a government decree that makes money money, but in reality, while the government fiat matters, it is useless without the consent of the currency users. But insofar as we use the expression “fiat currency” to refer to currencies that have no “intrinsic value”, then all currencies are fiat currencies.)

  12. #40
    That Forbes article is slick. It goes from analyzing barter systems, tangible goods for tangible goods, to claiming paper money backed by gold is the same thing. False comparison since the prison cigarette trade wasn't based on an inmate handing another inmate a piece of paper representing a cigarette. He handed the other inmate an actual cigarette, not a "receipt" for a cigarette. Drugs for Tide, not drugs for a piece of paper representing Tide.

    Quote Originally Posted by H E Panqui
    possession of value, defined by law
    Can you direct me to an explanation of when, historically, gold and silver as direct forms of exchange were assigned a specific value by law? For example, in ancient Rome was a value directly assigned to gold by law and what was that value exactly? Or was it simply that everyone that used it as money determined, by free market principles, what gold would purchase?
    Last edited by devil21; 04-20-2016 at 12:45 AM.
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing."-Ron Paul

    "We have set them on the hobby-horse of an idea about the absorption of individuality by the symbolic unit of COLLECTIVISM. They have never yet and they never will have the sense to reflect that this hobby-horse is a manifest violation of the most important law of nature, which has established from the very creation of the world one unit unlike another and precisely for the purpose of instituting individuality."- A Quote From Some Old Book



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post

    Can you direct me to an explanation of when, historically, gold and silver as direct forms of exchange were assigned a specific value by law? For example, in ancient Rome was a value directly assigned to gold by law and what was that value exactly? Or was it simply that everyone that used it as money determined, by free market principles, what gold would purchase?
    They are confusing money with currency again. Money can be currency, not the other way. Rome started adding copper to produce coins, devaluing their money. Eventually they failed.

  15. #42
    banks have in deposit, 0.0006 cents/ every dollar from the people.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcHmxQ-fnpc
    Last edited by kfarnan; 04-25-2016 at 10:04 AM.

  16. #43
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    1,125
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    "Can you direct me to an explanation of when, historically, gold and silver as direct forms of exchange were assigned a specific value by law? For example, in ancient Rome was a value directly assigned to gold by law and what was that value exactly? Or was it simply that everyone that used it as money determined, by free market principles, what gold would purchase?"




    (according to steve zarlenga--and if anyone knows of a better monetary historian please name the name--"...The origins of money are shrouded in uncertainty. Very few facts are yet available, making most ideas about it a kind of educated guesswork.."

    "...We do know that one of the most widely used moneys and measuring units for large transactions was the ox or cow. From Ireland to the Mediterranean to Africa, cattle were used as a means of exchange, and especially as a measure of value. Furthermore, they appear to have had a fairly stable value, with 3 to 4 cows exchangeable for one slave woman in ancient Ireland and in Homeric Greece....

    ...zarlenga speculates: ..."So the original development of money may have arisen out of the need for uniform sacrifices or dues to the gods, and fees to the priests. The combination of fear of the supernatural, plus respect for the priests' ability to tell the right time to plant crops, and their primitive knowledge of both medicines and poisons, would have been a very powerful influence..."

    "...Agricultural commodities by weight served as the primitive money system in the ancient Oriental societies. They also used metallic commodities, particularly silver by weight...It is presumed that in earlier agrarian societies, loans had been made in seed grains, animals and tools to farmers. Since one grain of seed could generate a plant with 100 new grain seeds, after the harvest farmers could repay the grain with interest in grain....The Sumerians used the same word -mas- for both calves and interest....[while] metals are 'barren'---they have no powers of regeneration. Any interest paid in them must originate from some other source or process, outside of the borrower's understanding or control. Money and power would concentrate in the hands of lenders...."

    "...We can surmise that at a very early date gold, which was used ornamentally, was accepted as donations or fees to the temples, along with agricultural and animal produce. Unlike the organic donations which had to be consumed, the gold would remain. Over time, a large proportion of the existing gold would accumulate in the temples..."






    Last edited by H. E. Panqui; 05-02-2016 at 06:30 PM.

  17. #44
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    1,125
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Quote Originally Posted by kfarnan View Post
    They are confusing money with currency again. Money can be currency, not the other way. Rome started adding copper to produce coins, devaluing their money. Eventually they failed.


    (c'mon man!!...so when are you ?'austrians' (theoretical 'ludwiggers') going to do a 'CURRENCY bomb' (YOUR DONATION$ ARE MOSTLY "CURRENCY" NOT "MONEY," RIGHT?) for your favorite republicrat monetary ignoramus politicians!..get real, man!...walk the walk...talk the talk...

    ..the historian Knapp exposes ludwigger ooga-booga gold bug theories: "I hold the attempt to deduce the nature of money without the idea of a state to be not only out of date, but even absurd"..
    Last edited by H. E. Panqui; 05-02-2016 at 02:29 PM.

  18. #45
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    1,125
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    devil 21 writes: "Can you direct me to an explanation of when, historically, gold and silver as direct forms of exchange were assigned a specific value by law? For example, in ancient Rome was a value directly assigned to gold by law and what was that value exactly? Or was it simply that everyone that used it as money determined, by free market principles, what gold would purchase?"


    (...it is my understanding that 'rome' had an extensive system of 'taxation'. 'The government' demanded 'tribute' in differing ways through different periods depending on the province, etc...to make 'taxation' easier/more uniform/etc. the romans used coins of bronze, silver, copper, etc. of certain weights, sizes, etc.. through their ?800 year 'existence'...

    ...so here you can see the 'value directly assigned to [metal] by law'...peasants, either cough up some coin or we do some really really bad things to you... (hint for any republicrats: possessing some coin when caesar's tax collectors came was very VERY 'valuable' to those who didn't want to become a slave, a prisoner, a person with a broken leg, etc..)

    ...and essentially nothing's changed from rome to 'murka with respect to the nature and 'the value' of 'money'...and so i say to ye ludwig gold bug republicrats who worketh thine holes about illion$ absent an honest clue as to the origin and nature of even one!: ooga freakin' booga!..
    Last edited by H. E. Panqui; 05-03-2016 at 07:18 AM.

  19. #46
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    1,125
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    ...here's a link featuring the late, great charles walters...he was the thrust behind the great 'acres usa' magazine..but he was also a monetary realist...(p.s. ...some of the attributions to some of the quotes might be wrong...but the essence of the words/ideas is sound...

    http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/rea...d=34218567

    "The government of the United States of America does not issue its own money, it borrows it from the private bank known as the Federal Reserve and pays interest on the loan. This creates the national debt.

    The money the Federal Reserve loans to the government of the United States of America is backed by bonds issued by the government. This con is the source of most, if not all, international wars and domestic suffering from poverty.

    To understand what stands in the way of global peace is to understand money. A lot can be understood about money just by reading these quotations.

    These quotes come from the last few pages of “The Nature of Money” by Charles Walters. It is only 16 pages long including the quotes and well worth the effort to read and understand it.

    “This business of borrowing money into circulation, then withholding more money creation to make payment and debt service impossible, haunted Persia, cursed Greece and Rome, annihilated the defense of Carthage, and presided over death and wars between Deuteronomy and the eve of the 1948 presidential election.” — Charles Walters in Acres U.S.A....

  20. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by H. E. Panqui View Post
    ...here's a link featuring the late, great charles walters...he was the thrust behind the great 'acres usa' magazine..but he was also a monetary realist...(p.s. ...some of the attributions to some of the quotes might be wrong...but the essence of the words/ideas is sound...

    http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/rea...d=34218567

    "The government of the United States of America does not issue its own money, it borrows it from the private bank known as the Federal Reserve and pays interest on the loan. This creates the national debt.

    The money the Federal Reserve loans to the government of the United States of America is backed by bonds issued by the government. This con is the source of most, if not all, international wars and domestic suffering from poverty.


    To understand what stands in the way of global peace is to understand money. A lot can be understood about money just by reading these quotations.

    These quotes come from the last few pages of “The Nature of Money” by Charles Walters. It is only 16 pages long including the quotes and well worth the effort to read and understand it.

    “This business of borrowing money into circulation, then withholding more money creation to make payment and debt service impossible, haunted Persia, cursed Greece and Rome, annihilated the defense of Carthage, and presided over death and wars between Deuteronomy and the eve of the 1948 presidential election.” — Charles Walters in Acres U.S.A....
    National Debt is created and authorized by Congress (they have to approve the debt ceiling) and agreed to by the President (Congress- according to the US Constitution- writes all spending bills and the President signs or vetoes them). Debt is created when they spend more than they take in in taxes and revenues. The Federal Reserve has nothing to do with that. To finance the debt, the US Treasury sells bonds to raise the revenues needed.

    The US Government borrows money from anybody purchasing Treasury bonds- that is how they borrow: issuing bonds. Yes, buyers may include the Federal Reserve. The Fed has about $2.4 trillion out of $20 trillion in US debt (roughly 12%). Yes, the Government pays interest on that debt- to all US Treasury note holders including the Fed. But in the case of the Federal Reserve, they don't keep that money. The Fed returns all profits (after their costs) to the US Treasury and they get additional revenues besides those from Treasury interest so they give the government back MORE than they were paid in interest on their government debt holdings so really, the Government is paid by the Fed- not the other way around.

    Figures for 20016 will be out in a couple of weeks, but last year the Fed gave the US Treasury $117 billion. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/fed...ury-2016-01-11
    Fed hands record $117 billion in earnings to Treasury

    WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — The Federal Reserve announced on Monday it transferred a record $117 billion in earnings to the U.S. Treasury during 2015.

    The transfer is nearly 21% more than the prior record of $96.9 billion, set in 2014.

    The transfer includes $97.7 billion in remittances, a side benefit of the U.S. central bank’s earnings from its massive bond-buying purchases. The Fed’s balance sheet now totals $4.5 trillion.

    In addition, the Fed transferred $19.3 billion to Treasury as required by the transportation spending measure signed into law late last year. That legislation mandated that the Fed’s capital surplus not exceed $10 billion.

    Under Fed policy, residual Fed earnings are distributed to Treasury after covering expenses.

    The remittances to the Treasury are made weekly.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 12-29-2016 at 12:23 PM.

  21. #48
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    1,125
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    zippy toe$ the line: "The US Government borrows money from anybody purchasing Treasury bonds- that is how they borrow: issuing bonds. Yes, buyers may include the Federal Reserve. The Fed has about $2.4 trillion out of $20 trillion in US debt (roughly 12%). Yes, the Government pays interest on that debt- to all US Treasury note holders including the Fed. But in the case of the Federal Reserve, they don't keep that money. The Fed returns all profits (after their costs) to the US Treasury and they get additional revenues besides those from Treasury interest so they give the government back MORE than they were paid in interest on their government debt holdings so really, the Government is paid by the Fed- not the other way around."



    ...good god zippy!!...i mean auld lang syne and all but let's not forget all old acquaintances...i tried to explain to you waaaaaay back on post #3 that you are forgetting and/or are ignorant that 'THE FED" and 'THE COMMERCIAL BANKS' (thousands) in 'the federal reserve cartel' are two different things...

    ...i repeat: (and i'm sorry, but i trust jerry voorhis more than 'zippy')

    “As a direct result of logical and relentless agitation by members of Congress, led by Congressman Wright Patman as well as by other competent monetary experts, the Federal Reserve began to pay to the U.S. Treasury a considerable part of its earnings from interest on government securities. This was done without public notice and few people, even today, know that it is being done. It was done, quite obviously, as acknowledgment that the Federal Reserve Banks were acting on the one hand as a national bank of issue, creating the nation’s money, but on the other hand charging the nation interest on its own credit – which no true national bank of issue could conceivably, or with any show of justice, dare to do.”
    Voorhis went on, “But this is only part of the story. And the less discouraging part, at that. For where the commercial banks are concerned, there is no such repayment of the people’s money.” Commercial banks, he explained, do not rebate the interest, although they also “‘buy’ the bonds with newly created demand deposit entries on their books – nothing more.”6
    Voorhis noted that the Constitution provides, “Congress shall have the power to coin money [and] regulate the value thereof.” Whether “to coin money” means “to issue money” has been debated; but as President Andrew Jackson observed, if anyone was given the power to issue money, it was Congress, not a private banking elite. For a full century before the American Revolution, the colonists funded a period of unprecedented prosperity and productive enterprise with paper money issued directly by their own local governments or government-owned banks. According to Benjamin Franklin, it was chiefly to get that power back after King George halted the practice that the colonists fought the Revolution.7 They won the war but lost the money-creating power to a private banking cartel...



  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by H. E. Panqui View Post
    the worst ones, imo, are 'the glenn beck austrians'...these goddamned fools are always yammering about 'big bad government'...never acknowledging that the creation and issuance of 'money' is LARGELY PRIVATELY CONTROLLED
    I disagree. I think the Fed acts as a branch of the government. They may be "private" in name but they have a govt granted monopoly on the currency. If they were really private in a free market sense that would be good thing.

  24. #50
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    1,125
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    I disagree. I think the Fed acts as a branch of the government. They may be "private" in name but they have a govt granted monopoly on the currency. If they were really private in a free market sense that would be good thing.


    ...i think you may fail to conceive that the private commercial 'banks of issue' [thousands of them here in the u.s.] are a very real part of 'the fed'...[read jerry voorhis...put away the ludwig theory]

    ...also, you fail to acknowledge the different functions of banks...as a 'fiduciary,' yes, i believe 'privacy in a free market sense' would be a 'good thing'...but private banksters exercising 'money creation/issuance' is just a goddamned fool idea...it is obvious to anyone not a monetary ignoramus that allowing a certain class of people--banksters--the privilege of money creation/issuance will empower that class as to be the master$ of the rest of us...

    ...also, is it not PRECISELY a PRIVATE entity that is free from honest PUBLIC auditing?!!...[hint: THE FED IS FREE FROM HONEST PUBLIC AUDITING]
    Last edited by H. E. Panqui; 01-02-2017 at 10:54 AM.

  25. #51
    You could argue that most of the money out there is free market money. If someone pays you with a check from a bank you've never heard of, are you more or less reluctant to take that check? Remember, that the federal government only has three types of obligations:

    1) Treasury bonds held
    2) Money banks hold at their accounts at the Federal Reserve
    3) Paper money

    Your deposits at Chase or BOA or Wells Fargo are obligations of those banks.

    If you only look at debt held by the public (so 1 + 2 + 3, minus intragovernmental holdings, minus foreign holdings), it is about 9 trillion dollars. Yet the total credit level is about 66 trillion. That 66 trillion is all bank-created money, backed by their assets.

  26. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by H. E. Panqui View Post


    ...i think you may fail to conceive that the private commercial 'banks of issue' [thousands of them here in the u.s.] are a very real part of 'the fed'...[read jerry voorhis...put away the ludwig theory]

    ...also, you fail to acknowledge the different functions of banks...as a 'fiduciary,' yes, i believe 'privacy in a free market sense' would be a 'good thing'...but private banksters exercising 'money creation/issuance' is just a goddamned fool idea...it is obvious to anyone not a monetary ignoramus that allowing a certain class of people--banksters--the privilege of money creation/issuance will empower that class as to be the master$ of the rest of us...

    ...also, is it not PRECISELY a PRIVATE entity that is free from honest PUBLIC auditing?!!...[hint: THE FED IS FREE FROM HONEST PUBLIC AUDITING]
    I agree although a "private" central bank with a govt granted monopoly is still "less bad" than a govt controlled money supply. At least the Fed has some incentive to protect the dollar. Without it they're out of business. If the govt was in charge of printing we would've had hyper inflation at least 50 years ago.

    What we really need is a competition among currencies. I think in that case gold or silver would emerge as the winner.

  27. #53
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    1,125
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    ...it is my opinion ron paul wrote something that needs correcting:...in a piece called 'on military and spending, it's trump versus trump,' ron paul wrote: "...That leaves only one solution: printing money out of thin air. It has been the favorite trick of his [trump's] predecessors.."
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?508081-On-Military-and-Spending-It%92s-Trump-Versus-Trump

    ...PLEASE PLEASE CORRECT ME but ron paul is [incorrectly] asserting that trump and his predecessors [presidents/politicians] 'print money out of thin air'...i'm sorry but that's just plain wrong!!..here's how a monetary realist would correct this:"..That leaves only one solution: issuing Treasury Bonds on the backs of taxpayers...bond$ that bankster$ acquire for NOTHING!!..

    ...here's some money creation reality for ludwiggers and others in the classic work, 'The Truth in Money Book':

    "Step 1 - Legalize a higher 'Federal Debt Limit', so that the prior one can be exceeded.
    "Step 2 - The Treasury writes up an interest-bearing bond for the amount of money it needs - say one billion dollars - and sells that bond to the Federal Reserve.
    "Step 3 - The Federal Reserve buys the bond and in exchange gives the U.S. Treasury a BANK DEPOSIT CREDIT of $1billion. Presto! The Fed has created out of nothing $1 billion of debt against the American People who are now obligated to repay the loan at interest or redeem the bond."
    "Step 4. The Treasury now proceeds to write checks against the $1 Billion in payment of its obligations....

    http://highfrequencyradionetwork.com...layman1980.pdf

    ...THE IMPORTANT POINT: 'THE GOVERNMENT' ISN'T CREATING 'OUR' 'MONEY OUT OF THIN AIR'!! PRIVATE BANKSTERS CREATE OUR MONEY FOR THEMSELVES AND USE THIS MONEY TO ACQUIRE INTEREST-BEARING BONDS, MORTGAGES, ETC., FOR THEMSELVES!!...REALITY...

    ...a !completely rigged! monetary order which has resulted in a monstrously destructive, completely rigged economic, political, etc., order!..IME, NEVER INTELLIGENTLY OR HONESTLY DISCUSSED IN PUBLIC!...

    "If the Nation can issue a dollar bond it can issue a dollar bill.
    The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good also. The
    difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets the
    money broker collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20%.
    Whereas the currency, the honest sort provided by the Constitution pays
    nobody but those who contribute in some useful way. It is absurd to say
    our Country can issue bonds and cannot issue currency. Both are promises
    to pay, but one fattens the usurer and the other helps the People." (widely attributed to Thomas Edison)
    Last edited by H. E. Panqui; 03-05-2017 at 08:58 PM.

  28. #54
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    1,125
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    ...voorhis' insights are to the root$...call me a naive fool, but i firmly believe that if even 5% of 'the public' understood what voorhis is writing about [below] we would be very near a radical and beautiful change for the betterment of humankind...[side message to any republicrats: don't let the web address spook you..][[republicrats are easily spooked]] ZIPPY and other rpf'ers with an interest in the most important of topic$, i would love to engage you in an honest conversation as to this bit from my favorite politician/'money guy'...granted, this is a 40 plus year-old worldview, but has anything important changed?...

    http://911blogger.com/news/2009-08-2...-reform-part-2

    The following nine paragraphs are from Jerry Voorhis’ 1973 book, The Strange Case of Richard Milhous Nixon. Voorhis was a Yale grad and member of Congress from 1937-1947. He was defeated by Nixon’s first Congressional election when Nixon linked Voorhis to communism from one campaign contribution.

    “But what actually happens when our government engages in deficit financing? The obvious way the government can get more buying power into the people's hands is by itself putting more money into the stream of commerce than it takes out in taxes. The tragedy of the situation is that, up to date, the only way our government has enabled itself to spend more money than it takes in has been by forcing this sovereign nation to borrow its own credit from private sources.
    This has been true, despite the fact that if deficit financing accomplishes its purpose at all it will increase production and trade, enhance tax revenues, and broaden the base of government credit.
    To the extent that government bonds are sold for cash to individuals or to institutional purchasers other than banks the government is taking out of circulation approximately as many dollars as it will put back in when it spends the money.
    To accomplish its purpose, deficit financing must result in the creation of new money, and the use of it to increase mass buying power. Only if this happens will there be any stimulation of idle plants to go back into production, or more employment.
    Under these circumstances what ought to happen is that the credit of this great nation should be drawn upon directly by the government-not that it should go more deeply into debt.
    For the credit of this or any nation is squarely based upon and derived from the production of wealth by the nation plus the power of the government to tax. A nation like the United States thus possesses an almost unlimited amount of credit. Otherwise it could not possibly have persuaded investors to buy $480 billion of government securities.
    By whatever percentage it can be anticipated that production and hence potential tax revenues will increase as a result of deficit spending, by that same amount the credit of the nation and its government will be increased. This same percentage of the volume of money previously in circulation should appear on the books of the Treasury as a credit entry to be drawn upon just like tax revenues. To do that would be nothing more than rational and proper bookkeeping. It would also be morally right bookkeeping. And it would make some sense of Mr. Nixon's "full employment budget" idea.
    But this is not what happens at all. Instead the sovereign government of the United States goes hat in hand to the private banking system and asks it to create the new money that the economy needs. The government gives-the word is used advisedly-it gives to the banking system, including the Federal Reserve banks, government bonds, the debt of all the people. Interest-bearing bonds, that is, bonds bearing as high an interest rate under today's regime as the banks decide to demand. Else they won't buy the bonds. The banks "buy" the bonds with newly created demand deposit entries on their books-nothing more. It is fountain-pen money and considerably more inflationary than would be the same amount of dollar bills created by the government. The deposits the banks create with which to own the people's debt are backed by nothing except the bonds themselves! In other words, they are backed by the credit of the American people.
    What the government has "borrowed" from the banks, what the people must for years pay interest on, is nothing more nor less than the credit of the nation, which obviously the nation possessed in the first place or the bonds themselves would be no good!”
    Last edited by H. E. Panqui; 06-20-2017 at 07:32 AM.

  29. #55
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    1,125
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    ...john stossel is a hero to some 'libertarians' i've met...sadly, stossel is typical of every republicrat i've met: absolutely WORSE THAN ignorant [because he confidently passes on his myths to others] about even the basic$:

    http://www.pragcap.com/where-does-money-come-from/
    “The process by which money is created is so simple the mind is repelled.” – JK Galbraith
    There’s a reason why myth # 1 in my “biggest myths in economics” is “the government prints money”. It is, by far, the most pernicious and misleading of the economic myths that exists. I was reminded of this today as I was reading a piece in Reason by John Stossel who is discussing the merits of replacing Hamilton on the $10 bill. He writes:
    “But none of us would have to fight about whom to put on currency if it weren’t all created and printed by a central government.”
    Ah, but John – we already have an entirely private money creation system. It just so happens to be controlled by these things called banks which compete within a private market based system to create loans! So, maybe we all need to be reminded where “money” really comes from. While it’s true that the government can “print” money it’s much more important to understand where money actually originates and how that printing fits into the broader context because it doesn’t work the way most people seem to think it does. I hope this simple explanation helps clarify:
    1) Banks create most of the money in our system. Loans create deposits and deposits are, by far, the most dominant form of money in the economy. Importantly, banks do not “multiply” reserves as is commonly believed. Banks make loans first and find reserves later. The money multiplier is a myth. So, if you want to say someone “prints money” you would be most accurate saying that private banks print money....

  30. #56
    This is one of the reasons I was in favor of Donald Trump for president. He was the onlyone in the race that actually understands the value of a billion dollars because he has it, and is accountable to bankers and shareholders for what he does with it. Politicians throw around money because it is abstract to them. To Trump, it is real. I'm not over fond of Trump, but I appreciate that he understands the reality of money,

    Zippy likes to give us charts to show how this cut or that one would not help, but even he does not have a billion dollars and hist charts are merely abscract.
    #NashvilleStrong

    “I’m a doctor. That’s a baby.”~~~Dr. Manny Sethi



  31. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  32. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by kfarnan View Post
    Most people don't want to change their beliefs. Comfort and programming are hard habits to break for humans. Save yourself, in time they will come to you.
    This.

    Or, they will die clinging to their delusions. It's all very amusing.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  33. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Booms and busts always happen- no matter what money or banking systems you use.
    That, sir, is a lie.

    ETA: I must be more precise. There is a difference between purely "organic" booms and busts that result from various circumstances and those that result from intention. Those we have experienced in America starting in the early 20th century have been of the latter type.

    $#@! can happen, and so economies are at times vulnerable to certain brands of vicissitude. What we have experienced in the USA have not been of that sort. The least scrutiny applied to the broader circumstances of events such as the 1929 crash reveals far too many "coincidences" to be coincidental.
    Last edited by osan; 07-05-2017 at 03:05 PM.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  34. #59
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    1,125
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Quote Originally Posted by euphemia View Post
    This is one of the reasons I was in favor of Donald Trump for president. He was the onlyone in the race that actually understands the value of a billion dollars because he has it, and is accountable to bankers and shareholders for what he does with it. Politicians throw around money because it is abstract to them. To Trump, it is real. I'm not over fond of Trump, but I appreciate that he understands the reality of money.


    ...'value' is subjective...i see trump as just another puppet who is no threat to this goddamned miserable monetary order under which 'we' are, and have been for centuries, enslaved, abused, etc....for example, in the time it takes him to do a rosie o'donnell rant he could enlighten people that, for example, 'US taxpayers/citizens' are on the hook for UNKNOWN ILLION$ IN BOND INTEREST TO BANKSTERS WHO ACQUIRED THE BOND$ FOR FREE!...for one example...

    ...as to trump 'understanding the reality of money' ...please direct me to the best writing/thinking the orange one has produced on the most important issue of the 'monetary slavery/abuse' perpetrated by that class of PRIVATE COMMERCIAL BANKSTERS WHO DOMINATE OUR LIVE$ THROUGH THEIR CONTROL OVER MONEY ISSUANCE, etc. ad nauseam...to my knowledge, not a stinking peep from the circu$ di$traction, trump...but then again, not a peep from ANY OF THESE REPUBLICRAT PUPPET$ (including the 'freedom' caucus ditherers!) ...there are no wright patman's and jerry voorhis's any more...just a bunch of hand-picked bankster poodle$ whose stinking, puny ideas are no threat to thi$ mi$erable monetary order under which we are herded...

    “I have never yet had anyone who could, through the use of logic and reason, justify the Federal Government borrowing the use of its own money... I believe the time will come when people will demand that this be changed. I believe the time will come in this country when they will actually blame you and me and everyone else connected with the Congress for sitting idly by and permitting such an idiotic system to continue.” (widely attributed to Congressman Wright Patman)

    "Once a nation parts with the control of its currency and credit, it matters not who makes the nations laws. Usury, once in control, will wreck any nation. Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognised as its most sacred responsibility, all talk of the sovereignty of parliament and of democracy is idle and futile." (attributed to William Lyon Mackenzie King)
    Last edited by H. E. Panqui; 07-10-2017 at 07:43 AM.

  35. #60
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    1,125
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    ....i have come to the conclusion that knowledgeable people about 'the economy' are virtually extinct among democrats and republicans...i recently engaged with some republican-cheerleading dopes at another forum as to 'the creation of money'...i asserted that 'most/all of 'our' money is created by private commercial banksters when said banksters 'create deposits' [counterfeit] which they 'loan' to people at interest, to purchase government bonds, etc..'

    ...man, you wouldn't believe the hate/scorn directed at me by the gd fool republicans/crats who frequent the site:... "Banks acquire bonds for nothing? You're painfully stupid. " was the response i received from one of these republican monetary ignoramuses!..it was typical of many of the comments i received for telling the truth...

    ...folks, we're in deep trouble...i don't personally know even one democrat or republican who has any honest understandings as to the hideous origin and nature of even one dollar...despite their holes frequently working as to some 'illion-dollar economy'...

    ...i will post some bill still videos which do as good a job as i can find at explaining this fraud to republicrats and other monetary ignoramuses...there are some knowledgeable people here...please comment on the info bill still presents..

    ...scroll to 1 min.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJZeo0yusk8
    Last edited by H. E. Panqui; 09-04-2017 at 08:57 AM.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •