How the banks create money

[psionl0]

I don't understand your objection, mind elaborating?

Sorry, I never saw this question before. The one-liner about full reserve banking is incorrect. Checkout http://www.themoneymasters.com/ or http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/ if you want to know how full reserve banking can work.

 

[Tippit]

Now that some of the heat seems to have gone from this debate I thought I should address this point. I tend to approach this subject from a purely commercial aspect. Commercial problems ought to be solved by commercial measures - not mob rule. A contract is a contract no matter who the contractors are. If you don't like the terms of a contract then don't sign it. You don't enter into a contract, enjoy the benefits of the contract then say, "I am not bound by this contract because the other guy is <-- insert bad words here -->".

Like it or not, the people have given their government the authority to borrow money on the credit of the nation - without any caveats whatsoever (it's written into the constitution). Until the people revoke this authority, governments are free to legitimately deal with any criminals they want. Even if the authority is revoked, that only stops the government from borrowing money in the future. It is not a way of reneging on existing loans which the government took out with the (implied) blessing of its people.

The problem with your logic, is that you use contract law (for a contract that >I< never signed) to ascribe legitimacy to illegitimate debts. Applying terms of a contract to a populace for which the signing was not unanimous, is the epitome of mob rule. In essence, you are saying that whatever a government does is right because it is legal, and even if we recognize it as wrong either before or after the fact, and after changing bad laws, that there is no course for restitution. Clearly you're wrong, and you probably shouldn't waste any more keystrokes trying to convince me otherwise.

If criminal creditors lend money to criminal governments in the hope of perpetually fleecing a population, then they risk losing all of what they lent. Especially when that credit was fiat money initially extended at below market interest rates by a quasi-private central bank. Any attempts to actually pay off the New World Order bankster billionaires, will result in economic armageddon. I've said it before, and I will say it again. The only solution for illegitimate debt, is debt cancellation. You can have fun trying to pay them off, I will not. Nice try, though.

 

[psionl0]

The problem with your logic, is that you use contract law (for a contract that >I< never signed) to ascribe legitimacy to illegitimate debts.

I'm sorry but if the government sells a bond in the open market place and spends the proceeds of that sale then AFAIK those very acts make the debt legitimate. The fact that you and I disapprove of such lunacy is irrelevant. We might just as well disapprove of the weather!

Clearly you're wrong, and you probably shouldn't waste any more keystrokes trying to convince me otherwise.

On moral grounds I probably am wrong but no individuals are going to have the authority to override a contract if I have anything to say about it. Individuals meddling in others' affairs is one of the biggest ills of society today.

I'm not trying to convince you that I am right and you are wrong, I just want you to understand that I am only interested in economic solutions to economic problems. Calls for a revolution are outside my sphere of interest. (From what I have seen in history books, most revolutions result in an even more dictatorial government replacing the old government anyway).

Any attempts to actually pay off the New World Order bankster billionaires, will result in economic armageddon.

Of course! Under FRB repayment of debt is impossible. It either results in hyperinflation, more debt or destruction of the money supply. That's FRB 101.

I've said it before, and I will say it again. The only solution for illegitimate debt, is debt cancellation. You can have fun trying to pay them off, I will not. Nice try, though.

Without FRB, debt repayment is possible. It won't happen without some pain though but as taxpayers, that is the price we collectively pay for allowing idiots to run government.

 

[Tippit]

I'm sorry but if the government sells a bond in the open market place and spends the proceeds of that sale then AFAIK those very acts make the debt legitimate. The fact that you and I disapprove of such lunacy is irrelevant. We might just as well disapprove of the weather!

No it doesn't. If bankers and politicians conspire to bilk citizens by miring them in unsustainable and unpayable debts, then citizens have the right to repudiate and cancel those illegitimate debts. You have this weird robotic sense of morality that places the sanctity of contracts above everything else. You would recognize contracts that bind slaves, even though everyone knows that slavery is wrong, regardless of whether or not some government recognizes it as legal. Your odd position about debt repudiation makes your tirades against DEBT ridiculous.

On moral grounds I probably am wrong but no individuals are going to have the authority to override a contract if I have anything to say about it. Individuals meddling in others' affairs is one of the biggest ills of society today.

I was never a party to any "contract", so your analogy fails. Stop using contract law where it doesn't apply, we're talking about the scope and legitimacy of government action, and the repudiation of government action, not a sacred agreement between two consenting individuals.

I'm not trying to convince you that I am right and you are wrong, I just want you to understand that I am only interested in economic solutions to economic problems. Calls for a revolution are outside my sphere of interest. (From what I have seen in history books, most revolutions result in an even more dictatorial government replacing the old government anyway).

Now you're construing debt repudiation with revolution. Debt repudiation could very well avoid violent revolution. Why are you attempting this sort of misdirection?

Of course! Under FRB repayment of debt is impossible. It either results in hyperinflation, more debt or destruction of the money supply. That's FRB 101.

Without FRB, debt repayment is possible. It won't happen without some pain though but as taxpayers, that is the price we collectively pay for allowing idiots to run government.

No, when criminals run the business of government borrowing and lending, debt repudiation is the only logical and moral course. If you want to pay criminals and empower them, be my guest, but don't confuse that with a misplaced appeal for personal responsibility.

 

[psionl0]

I guess that this is where we will have to agree to differ. I call them idiots and you call them criminals. Either way, the voters keep putting them in the driving seat.

A selective default is not going to be a picnic either. It could quite possibly result in bloodshed.

 

[Tippit]

I guess that this is where we will have to agree to differ. I call them idiots and you call them criminals. Either way, the voters keep putting them in the driving seat.

The plurality voting system essentially guarantees the two-party duopoly that we have, at least in the United States, according to Duverger's law. Voters, for a long time, have had the choice of voting for the clown on the right, or the clown on the left, both of whom guarantee more borrowing and spending. Debt repudiation makes even more sense in this context.

The difference between "idiots" and "criminals" in this case can best be summed up by Grey's law, a correlary of Hanlon's Razor:

"Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice."
​

I'm sure the subject matter we're discussing qualifies as sufficiently advanced incompetence.

A selective default is not going to be a picnic either. It could quite possibly result in bloodshed.

It might, but so did the American Revolution. What's that saying about the tree of liberty, and the blood of patriots and tyrants? The financial octupus will no doubt react violently to the removal of its tentacles from around our collective necks, but its removal is the only moral and just course of action.

 

[psionl0]

It might, but so did the American Revolution.

It's interesting that you bring up the revolution. I presume you know who the real victors were?

 

[kowalskil]

I guess that this is where we will have to agree to differ. I call them idiots and you call them criminals. Either way, the voters keep putting them in the driving seat.

A selective default is not going to be a picnic either. It could quite possibly result in bloodshed.

And who wants bloodshed? Nearly no one. But it will happen, unfortunately.
.

 

[psionl0]

And who wants bloodshed? Nearly no one. But it will happen, unfortunately.
.

Well, Tippit has been displaying quite a bloodlust lately.

Ironically, it is possible to pay down the debts without causing excessive hardship (the price would probably be a little more inflation than we would like). However, as long as the banks are sacrosanct, this will never happen. The most likely scenario will be defaults galore and all the public anger that goes along with them.