FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Visiting Ron Paul's Fed-Free Utopia
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
James D



Joined: 16 Dec 2006
Posts: 898

PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 6:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You can listen to him here - on mushrooms! (or maybe that should be mushrooms on him)
http://gnosticmedia.podomatic.com/
Podcast#57
http://gnosticmedia.podomatic.com/player/web/2009-12-20T22_00_40-08_00

(Takes 10 mins to get going - boy are we lucky with just Neemwell.com!)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jose



Joined: 23 Jan 2007
Posts: 23

PostPosted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 7:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
What were your reservations?


The basic premise of the book is that there are two ways to see money, as a commodity (The metallists like Ron Paul) or as an act of law (like the Green Bag, the Continental or the Assignat). I think his book is a must read for anyone trying to understand the nature of money...

Having said that, I don't like the fact that he is involved with politicians... I don't trust them.

Second, he proposes the creation of a new branch in the government (the central bank) which determines the "right" amount of created money and how it should be initially allocated by the state... (central planning).

I understand that we should not be paying interest to banksters for something created out of nothing but I don't want more bureaucrats in DC having extra powers; I think this is a false dichotomy and I fail to see how that is the solution to our problems...

_________________
If you have to kill a hundred to save the lives of a million, you are still a mass murderer...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 7676

PostPosted: Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ok, got it.

There is a common misconception that the Fed pockets the
interest on the money it creates. But in fact it pays interest
to the US Gov. So reform has no impact on Gov. income.

There is also a big campaign against fractional reserve banking.
But this is mostly accounting. You could replace it with a 100% funded
non-fractional system and it would make no difference.

There is the much vaunted gold standard. But this would turn off
the spigot of monetary flows in a great depression-inducing way.

Finally there is the idea that a replacement for the Fed would
result in money-supply and interest being determined by
Congress. But in reality, Congress would STILL simply rubber-stamp
the monetary policies determined by the NWO/CFR/Etc.

Hard to figure if any of these "reforms" amount to a hill of beans.

The rot goes deep.

_________________
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
urbanspaceman



Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 325
Location: London , UK

PostPosted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 9:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've just finished reading Zarlenga's book "The Lost Science of Money" myself and am highly impressed by it. It may be one of the most important books I've ever read, so I highly recommend it. Economics is on the one hand a dry topic, but on the other it is a linchpin issue that is at the heart of many other social justice concerns.

jose wrote:
The basic premise of the book is that there are two ways to see money

I'd say it's much broader than that. The book tries to answer 2 fundamental questions: What is money? and, Who should have the power to create and control it?

The answer he presents is basically this: money is the abstract social power to exchange valuables using a counting system sponsored by the institutions of a society, mainly by law and by government. In order for the exchange of valuables to happen fairly and efficiently money should be created and controlled by the people for the benefit of society, through their public institutions.

Zarlenga explains, using historical case studies, that by MIS-defining money as something other than a social power embodied in law, the control of money goes to those mis-defining it. When money is defined as gold, it is controlled by those who already have the gold, which is often the wealthy who can manipulate the gold supply. When it is defined as credit, as the banks define it, it is controlled by the people in the lending business, the private banks. In the episodes of history where money was defined and understood properly, as a function of law, the people tended to quickly prosper without resorting to exploitation.

jose wrote:
Second, he proposes the creation of a new branch in the government (the central bank) which determines the "right" amount of created money and how it should be initially allocated by the state... (central planning).

I understand that we should not be paying interest to banksters for something created out of nothing but I don't want more bureaucrats in DC having extra powers; I think this is a false dichotomy and I fail to see how that is the solution to our problems...


It's difficult to trust government institutions these days, but how else can money serve the people if it's not controlled by an institution accountable to the people? Right now it's in the totally unaccountable hands of private banks. At least through government there is the POSSIBILITY of accountability.

Often those asking for less government regulation, or those saying that free market forces will take care of everything, are gamblers and thieves (in suits!) trying to remove all obstacles to their criminal activities.

Zarlenga makes the case in his book, using history, that governments ALWAYS have handled the power of money creation (when they had it) more responsibly then when other institutions had it. There are no exceptions. So while government isn't perfect, it's always been better at creating money and deciding how much to issue. Those are the historical facts.

From what I've read elsewhere, Canada put this model into practice successfully during the Depression. Once establishing a government controlled central bank, Canada not only got out of the Depression, but it built one of the world's largest navies, and by the 60s had established solid universal welfare and healthcare. In the mid 70s, though, international bankers began to chip away at the system.

This quote from the Prime Minister at the time, W.L.M. King, shows that he deeply understood the role of government in money creation:

Quote:
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 recognized as its most sacred responsibility, all talk of the sovereignty of parliament and of democracy is idle and futile.


More on government / no government:

howg wrote:
The idea that even less government is what we need is absurd.
We have no government at all right now!!
And ironically, the system we do currently enjoy is precisely the result of having no government whatsoever, rather than the result of having one that is too large or to powerful.

I'd say it's an exaggeration to say we are without government. It's function is severely crippled by the corrupt working within it for the elites, but their are still a few honest congressmen, senators, and MPs who lumber along trying to do their jobs. We could exaggerate the situation about the medical field and say because of corruption and misinformation we have no medicine...but I find that to be a false "all-ness" statement.

Why do multi-national corporations search out cheap labour in non-Western countries, and get away with it? It's because they have a weaker government, law, and law enforcement than us. If we were TRULY without these things, you'd notice.

Fintan wrote:
There is also a big campaign against fractional reserve banking.
But this is mostly accounting. You could replace it with a 100% funded
non-fractional system and it would make no difference.


I don't understand this. Surely a 100% reserve requirement, which is what the general public thinks the banks have (that they are ACTUALLY loaning out deposits from people, instead of creating the credit then and there), would be a positive move. Banks love it when they can get rid of reserve requirements so they are free to steal the wealth of the world at will. Money creation needs to be removed from private banks, and banks are creating money (although it's actually credit SUBSTITUTING for money) through fractional reserve. Enforce, through the law, that banks can't loan out money they don't have, and take away one of the main unfair privileges of the banks, no?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
urbanspaceman



Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 325
Location: London , UK

PostPosted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 2:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fintan wrote:
There is a common misconception that the Fed pockets the
interest on the money it creates. But in fact it pays interest
to the US Gov. So reform has no impact on Gov. income.

According to Zarlenga, the FED does pocket the interest, but indirectly and through a kind of slight of hand:

Quote:
The Federal Reserve System puts itself forward as a non-profit organization that turns over its operating profits to the U.S. Treasury, after all expenses, including the 6% dividend to member banks. However this misses the point on several scores. First, the banking profits coming through the privileged money creation process mainly occurs at the member bank level of operation, and those profits are not turned over to the Treasury. That is, the net earnings from the member banks seigniorage privilege are not turned over to our government but kept by the private member banks. For England this amount has been estimated at 41 Billion Pounds per year. For the US we think itís between $100-200 billion per year; but we need to know the amount more precisely from the Fed itself.

This money creation which is put into the system when the banks extend loans, eventually becomes a source of funding when our governmentís bonds are sold to the public.

http://www.monetary.org/federalreserveprivate.htm


Zarlenga's proposed reform is not to abolish the FED like Ron Paul, but to make it part of the US Treasury... in order to bring it under government control.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
urbanspaceman



Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 325
Location: London , UK

PostPosted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 6:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A great program, actually mentioned by Zarlenga on a podcast, showing that the recent financial crisis was a falsification of the Libertarian philosophy. Alan Greenspan, like Ron Paul, was a Libertarian. As shown in the documentary, Greenspan admitted before Congress in 2008 that he realised he was wrong.

The crisis was a demonstration of Adam Smith's "invisible hand" and Ayn Rand's unregulated market at work.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qP4d5paLECs

Watch entire program at
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/

This program also highlights the effort of government trying to fix the problem, but was persuaded, overrun, and pressured by lobbyists. One woman, Brooksley Born, a lawyer who almost became Attorney General under Clinton, tried to do her job as a regulator but was blocked.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/interviews/born.html

I should mention that the counter-argument to Libertarianism economics is not to get the government involved in the banking industry. I'm convinced that the government should be the sole issuer of the currency and should also have a policing function to watch the banks.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Peter



Joined: 26 Jun 2007
Posts: 2380
Location: The Canadian shield

PostPosted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 10:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This was an excellent program and very revealing of the state of politics in the US.
_________________
The grand design, reflected in the face of Chaos.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 7676

PostPosted: Fri Jan 15, 2010 12:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
urbanspaceman:
At least through government there is the POSSIBILITY of accountability.

Yeah it's an incremental advance.
Sometimes increments are the realistic way.

Thanks for the detailed outline on Zarlenga.

Quote:
Fintan wrote:
There is also a big campaign against fractional reserve banking.
But this is mostly accounting. You could replace it with a 100% funded
non-fractional system and it would make no difference.


I don't understand this. Surely a 100% reserve requirement, which is what the general public thinks the banks have (that they are ACTUALLY loaning out deposits from people, instead of creating the credit then and there), would be a positive move....... Enforce, through the law, that banks can't loan out money they don't have, and take away one of the main unfair privileges of the banks, no?

If we make it a 100% system the banks would loose the interest
on the 90% fraction they create. But banks got to make a profit.
They'll just have to increase rates and/or charges.

With loan failure rates of a couple percent, a 10% reserve is usually
quite sufficient. We can address the dangers by mandating
prudent risk ratios more stringently.

The only difference between fractional and full reserve banking
seems to be just moving figures around on paper. No real impact.

Debt money banking is just a tokenized system anyway.

_________________
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
urbanspaceman



Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 325
Location: London , UK

PostPosted: Sat Jan 16, 2010 7:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fintan wrote:
The only difference between fractional and full reserve banking seems to be just moving figures around on paper. No real impact.

Again, I'm puzzled by this, because in my understanding there is a world of difference. Are you simply claiming that with some creative accounting a bank can fool auditors that they are loaning out the money they have from depositors?

I'm not an economist, nor do I understand the nuances of the finance and banking industries. I'm reliant on the work of monetary reformers/monetary authors like Bill Still, Steven Zarlenga, and Ellen Brown. All of these folks advocate a 100% reserve system.

This makes logical sense to me. I, as a private citizen, cannot lend out money I do not have. I would go to jail for either counterfeiting or cheque kiting. So why can a bank, also a private entity, lend out money it doesn't have? Why should a bank be allowed to perform an action that I would be jailed for?

So I either don't understand your point, or I strongly disagree. The fractional reserve system is what gives the banks the power to create counterfeit money, and that is the very power that must be taken away.

Fintan wrote:
If we make it a 100% system the banks would loose the interest on the 90% fraction they create. But banks got to make a profit. They'll just have to increase rates and/or charges.

Yes, they would loose the OBSCENE profits they currently enjoy from the most government subsidised industry on the planet, but they would not loose all profits. They would be like other industries, competing with each other. The danger of forming cartels would always be there, but barring that, competition BETWEEN banks would keep service and interest charges down.

Sure, the financial industry would shrink, but good riddance to them! The vast majority of banks do not earn their wealth. Any person getting rich for doing nothing is amoral, and a form of theft. If a person gets rich by providing useful and desired goods and services to the world then they are really creating wealth, and I say more power to them.

They'll always be a need for loans, and the bankers who can still come up with the smart business model to make a profit on loans using 100% reserve banking (don't Credit Union do this?) will be successful. They will have to face the same realities that manufacturing industries face when trying to figure out how to make a profit...usually, with most goods, the margins are small.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 7676

PostPosted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 3:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The fractional reserve system is what gives the banks the power to
create counterfeit money, and that is the very power that must be
taken away.

The banks can only create money on the basis of fractional reserve rules.
They can't just think of a number, any number and then double it.

It is the Treasury and Fed who determine the money supply - not banks.

But let's accept that a 100% reserve ratio would be a good idea.

If so, how do we get there?

Right now the way things work is that the US Gov/Fed
create say $100 of new money.

Then the banks can create another $900 of fractional money
to gross this up to $1,000 --and loan this out at retail.

If we insist they can't create this fraction, then they would
have only $100 to lend out --the money USGov/Fed created.

That would cut current lending by 900%!!

To fix this problem, the USGov/Fed would have to create
the whole $1,000 itself --and give this to banks to lend.

But the banks would have lost the interest on the fraction
they used to create themselves, and because this is used
to offset their costs, they would have to raise interest rates
on loans and/or charges to compensate.

Like I say, we would have just moved around the figures on
the banks and Fed's balance sheets --for no advantage.

It's was all mythical money anyway!!

Yes the profits of the big monopoly banking groups are often
obscene, but normal retail banking is a competitive business
and the rates of return on capital employed are not
particularly exorbitant.

Regional banking structures need to make a reasonable profit.
Don't throw out the baby with the Wall St bathwater.

On the issue of fractional banking:

Typical banking losses on bad loans are in the order of a couple
of percent and this is well covered with a 10% fractional system.

It was imprudent lending which led to the crash
--not structural problems with fractional lending itself.

Fix this with much tighter loan risk rules and criteria.

I agree that we have been fukd over by certain big
banking instutions, but I don't see petrol-bombing
my local bank as a prudent solution to the problem.

We need viable solutions that do more than just move mythical
money around. We need a viable way to transition from the
current system to a better one. And we need proof it is a
better one before we make any move.

_________________
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
MichaelC



Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 2000

PostPosted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 3:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Don't want to get fukd by the banks? Don't borrow any money from them!

(Except for getting fukd by the IRS, which is nothing more than a group of thugs who are the collection agency for the owners of the New York Fed. But if you are sharp you can figure out how not to let them fuk you either)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hawkwind



Joined: 19 Jan 2006
Posts: 719

PostPosted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 7:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ron Paul Powerful Speech - A Call for Revolution?


Rabble rousing asshole! He is pushing the party line big time for the 2010 elections ... pleasing tea-baggers in a literal (pornographic) sense ... Embarassed


- Hawk

_________________
"Look up here, I'm in heaven. I've got scars that can't be seen. I've got drama, can't be stolen. Everybody knows me now." - David Bowie
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.