Yes government sucks. It's better to have greedy and corrupt handful of individuals dictate your life. Why even bother letting the government manage the army, police, fire response, parks. We should turn these over to the cabal as well.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
abolish the Federal Reserve?
- Thread starter procrastinator
- Start date
Yes government sucks. It's better to have greedy and corrupt handful of individuals dictate your life. Why even bother letting the government manage the army, police, fire response, parks. We should turn these over to the cabal as well.
the upshot to this level of greed is that it's probably not capable of sustaining itself along some sort of optimal greed frontier indefinitely
it's pretty hilarious though to watch a fed governor try and optimize the degree of wealth transfer to what our society can sustain in the short term
imo as we hurdle past the 33% devaluation mark, if the fed and treasury have no intention of defending the dollar at any level short of a 50% collapse or more, they owe it to the country to admit and explain it as their policy takes us further down this road
at the very least paulson needs to stop using the words 'strong' and 'dollar' in the same sentence
it's pretty hilarious though to watch a fed governor try and optimize the degree of wealth transfer to what our society can sustain in the short term
imo as we hurdle past the 33% devaluation mark, if the fed and treasury have no intention of defending the dollar at any level short of a 50% collapse or more, they owe it to the country to admit and explain it as their policy takes us further down this road
at the very least paulson needs to stop using the words 'strong' and 'dollar' in the same sentence
Quote from bluud:
bank of (A) has $450,000
bank of (A) loans out 450K to ten home purchasers who have put down 50K
after a few months, the home owners are incapable of paying the mortgage
bank of (A) sells all ten houses at 450K
buyers loose their 50K
bank of (A) earns 4.5Million through all sells (net profit $4 Million)
bank of (A) now loans out $45 Million (10 x 4.5 Million) to 100 people who want to purchase a home
am I missing something?
can anyone provide an answer for this
Quote from procrastinator:
What would happen if the USA government abolished the Federal Reserve? By abolished I mean seized all assets and responsibilities of the Federal Reserve so that it was the USA government that printed U.S. Dollars and not the Federal Reserve. If the USA declared the Feds unconstitutional and abolished it would the large % (~45%) of the national debt owed to the federal reserve be gone too?
Pie Chart of National Debt: http://www.optimist123.com/optimist/2007/08/an-800-billion-.html
you are misreading the chart. the 45% refers to gov't debted owned by the federal gov't, not the federal reserve.
bank of (A) has $450,000
bank of (A) loans out 450K to ten home purchasers who have put down 50K
>> to finance that, bank (a) borrows $4050k in the market <<
after a few months, the home owners are incapable of paying the mortgage
bank of (A) sells all ten houses at 450K
buyers loose their 50K
bank of (A) get proceeds of 4.5Million through all sells
>> repays $4050k borrowed from the market <<
>> and we're back at the beginning, bank of (A) has $450.000
--
You suffer from the popular misconception that banks can create money out of thin air, which they cannot.
bank of (A) loans out 450K to ten home purchasers who have put down 50K
>> to finance that, bank (a) borrows $4050k in the market <<
after a few months, the home owners are incapable of paying the mortgage
bank of (A) sells all ten houses at 450K
buyers loose their 50K
bank of (A) get proceeds of 4.5Million through all sells
>> repays $4050k borrowed from the market <<
>> and we're back at the beginning, bank of (A) has $450.000
--
You suffer from the popular misconception that banks can create money out of thin air, which they cannot.
Quote from BJL:
You suffer from the popular misconception that banks can create money out of thin air, which they cannot.
I never made a conclusion I was only asking, it's pretty obvious. but they still do make money out of thin air, look at the leverage they get without having to pay interest on it.
Quote from ShoeshineBoy:
Well it sounds like you have some learning to do, if you ever plan on truly understanding how the world really works. I am not gonna bother to educate you or anyone, it's pointless, and a number of posters on this board are simply beyond hope, which is fine with me as the sheep are needed.
It comes down to each individual to go out, research and form their own opinion.
What I will say is that a centralized banking system is a COMMUNIST concept, not a free market or capitalist concept. The founders of this country actually felt that the government should have a hands off approach to money and let the markets decide. Some regulation is needed but nowhere to the point of a central bank which controls money supply.
Money is meant to facilitate trade, commerce & investment, not control it. Free competitive banking has existed in the world, it was a very stable system. It does require certain curbs & control, to prevent coersion & monopolies, as a 100% pure laissez faire approach is fantasy.
"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws."
- Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild
Quote from Hydroblunt:
Well it sounds like you have some learning to do, if you ever plan on truly understanding how the world really works. I am not gonna bother to educate you or anyone, it's pointless, and a number of posters on this board are simply beyond hope, which is fine with me as the sheep are needed.
It comes down to each individual to go out, research and form their own opinion.
What I will say is that a centralized banking system is a COMMUNIST concept, not a free market or capitalist concept. The founders of this country actually felt that the government should have a hands off approach to money and let the markets decide. Some regulation is needed but nowhere to the point of a central bank which controls money supply.
Money is meant to facilitate trade, commerce & investment, not control it. Free competitive banking has existed in the world, it was a very stable system. It does require certain curbs & control, to prevent coersion & monopolies, as a 100% pure laissez faire approach is fantasy.
"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws."
- Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild
I don't get it. I responded to someone name 'bluud', so I don't know who you are, do I? So I don't even know what I said that so condemned myself to being a Rothschild-controlled lambling.
And your alternative to our current central banking system? You have to grow the money in any system, so I think it's more a matter of degree. You might want 2% growth, I might want 3% and Bernanke obvioulsy wants about 8-10%.
How does that make any of us Communists??