161 replies to this topic

[Br Cornelius]

questionmark, on 30 September 2012 - 03:32 PM, said:

Every law you know. The constitution says nowhere that the government cannot outsource its tasks, and has done so from road building to defense. The only limit is the legislative where the laws have to be made by elected representatives. The rest is quite irrelevant who does it as long as it is under the authority and supervision of the government. Money is no different.

There lies the problem with the Fed - they delegated responsibility for oversight at the same time.

Br Cornelius

[questionmark]

Br Cornelius, on 30 September 2012 - 03:42 PM, said:

There lies the problem with the Fed - they delegated responsibility for oversight at the same time.

Br Cornelius

That is a different story, the point made is that the government can delegate as much of its responsibilities as it sees fit.
And no, they have not delegated oversight, they are just not exercising it due to lack of economical knowledge. The Fed is accountable to Congress. It just turns out to be a joke every time as the committee members know as much about the FEDs duties as I know about being pope.

[Mr Right Wing]

Karlis, on 30 September 2012 - 03:05 PM, said:

The USA Constitution *originally* made it clear as to how money was created by the Government.


The Congress shall have Power ...

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
Source

In other words -- the government, *not banks* were given authority to mint money.

There is no problem then.

[Mr Right Wing]

questionmark, on 30 September 2012 - 03:49 PM, said:

That is a different story, the point made is that the government can delegate as much of its responsibilities as it sees fit.
And no, they have not delegated oversight, they are just not exercising it due to lack of economical knowledge. The Fed is accountable to Congress. It just turns out to be a joke every time as the committee members know as much about the FEDs duties as I know about being pope.

If a state bank is created, if its given newly created money, if it buys the debts of other banks and then goes bust the debt is eliminaed.

However it -
1. Amounts to inflating the money supply devaluing savings in real terms.
2. Organisations tied into export contracts receive less money in real terms.
3. Organisations tied into import contracts would pay more money in real terms.

The economy would experience a crash in imports/exports but would go through a rapid recovery as theres no debt in the system.

[acidhead]

questionmark, on 30 September 2012 - 03:39 PM, said:

I hope so too, but if you have been listening to Ron Paul it is no wonder that you think that the government is prohibited from delegating its tasks.

You obviously haven't been listening to RP bud because he isn't saying that the GOV cannot source out production.  What he's advocating is a complete audit of the FED so everybody can see for themselves who their friends are in doling out public funds.  Once exposed perhaps people will wake up to the fact that the FED has been a scam from day one.

[acidhead]

questionmark, on 30 September 2012 - 03:49 PM, said:

That is a different story, the point made is that the government can delegate as much of its responsibilities as it sees fit.
And no, they have not delegated oversight, they are just not exercising it due to lack of economical knowledge. The Fed is accountable to Congress. It just turns out to be a joke every time as the committee members know as much about the FEDs duties as I know about being pope.

exactly

[acidhead]

Br Cornelius, on 30 September 2012 - 08:19 AM, said:

That is where we would differ then. I believe that the money supply should be free of interest - but banks should be able to lend money at interest. I do not however believe that they should be able to lend money on a fractional basis (that is create money by creating debt).

And I couldn't disagree with banks going to the wall if they made bad loans - but that is hardly relevant to a discussion of the Gold Standard.

Br Cornelius

The free market does not exclude any GOV from operating within the rules of a capitalism system.

The sole purpose of having a GOV issuing the national currency in a market is the means to accumulate money to help fund the Judicial system, the military and of course GOV employees.  

Creating a law to allow a GOV to issue currency without interest is a recipe for disaster.  Think of all the leaches wanting some of that interest free money to lend out with interest.  At least there is some risk right now.   Who would be granted the privilege to issue interest free currency?  ....buddies of GOV?....  which so is happening today?  It doesn't make any sense.

Where we differ is in confidence.  A promise to pay... in full.  Individuals who take a risk in helping create a better society.  Without any risk there can be no advancement.  The gold/silver standard free market allows for this advancement by creating an environment where the individual is granted permission to take a huge risk but being held responsible for his actions.  When mistakes are made everybody becomes wiser and we move on.

Edited by acidhead, 01 October 2012 - 03:10 AM.

[Br Cornelius]

acidhead, on 01 October 2012 - 03:03 AM, said:

The free market does not exclude any GOV from operating within the rules of a capitalism system.

The sole purpose of having a GOV issuing the national currency in a market is the means to accumulate money to help fund the Judicial system, the military and of course GOV employees.  

Creating a law to allow a GOV to issue currency without interest is a recipe for disaster.  Think of all the leaches wanting some of that interest free money to lend out with interest.  At least there is some risk right now.   Who would be granted the privilege to issue interest free currency?  ....buddies of GOV?....  which so is happening today?  It doesn't make any sense.

Where we differ is in confidence.  A promise to pay... in full.  Individuals who take a risk in helping create a better society.  Without any risk there can be no advancement.  The gold/silver standard free market allows for this advancement by creating an environment where the individual is granted permission to take a huge risk but being held responsible for his actions.  When mistakes are made everybody becomes wiser and we move on.

A currency with interest automatically causes inflation of that currency - which cannot exist in a supposed fixed money supply such as the Gold Standard. This is the built in flawof the FED system.

Br Cornelius

[Mr Right Wing]

Br Cornelius, on 01 October 2012 - 06:02 AM, said:

A currency with interest automatically causes inflation of that currency - which cannot exist in a supposed fixed money supply such as the Gold Standard. This is the built in flawof the FED system.

Br Cornelius

Interest and inflation are vital mechanisms which allows countries to finance wars and other things they cant afford at the moment they occur.

If all you do is trade gold what happens when they dont have enough gold in the vault?

[Little Fish]

Karlis, on 30 September 2012 - 01:28 PM, said:

As I see it, the following suggestion could possibly (???) be the aim of the *Money Controllers* to collapse the world financial system, with the aim of introducing a "New Global Money System".

Result? A new "World Order" controls Global Finance?

Just a thought,
Karlis

yes that is the goal, but collapsing private banks is not the same as collapsing the world financial system. this is where glass steigal comes in - every "bank" decides whether it is a commercial bank (building society/credit union/state bank etc) or an investment bank. those investment banks that are bankrupt you let collapse. so you seperate commercial banking activities (which we all need) from those risky deriviatives operations which we don't need.

[Little Fish]

Br Cornelius, on 30 September 2012 - 02:10 PM, said:

Just to play the devils advocate - what is intrinsically wrong with a single global currency system - afterall it is the instabilities in international trade brought about by multiple competing currencies which have caused the current problems. Also, though they may not realise it, the Gold standard flunkies are advocating exactly the same thing

Br Cornelius

no it isn't.
securitised debt being held as assets on the bank balance sheets is the cause of the problem. that and fraudulent ratings agencies giving AAA to junk mortgage debt. had those bank reserve assets been gold instead of promises to pay from negative equity mortgage holders who were always going to walk away from those debts, then there would not have been a problem.

[Little Fish]

Mr Right Wing, on 30 September 2012 - 02:40 PM, said:

1. why don't you just let the private banks go bust instead.
1. What would happen to the finances in business accounts? It would cause the worse recession in history.

glass steigal would ensure those business accounts were not affected. only the investment banks would go down. you implement glass steigal first, then let the bankrupt investment banks go down.

Quote

2. create a state bank (or federal bank controlled by congress) at the same time.
2. Banks need free enterprise to generate maximum profits and government meddling to be kept at its minimum.

there is no reason why a bank needs to "generate maximum profits". the control of currency is for the benefit of a nation, not for the benefit of a few control freak oligarchs. it is lack of "government meddling" (or "oversight" as it is known by the rest of us) that caused the mess.

Quote

3. why should a public institution "buy" the debt of private companies.
3. The state bank is just a temporary measure. Its created to aborb bank debts then ceases trading. As such all debt is made to disappear.

and you keep the same institutions in business that caused the problem. if wiping out the debt is all you want to do, then just wipe out all the debt. you don't even need a state bank to do that. however transferring the debt to a state bank realistically is just transferring the debt to the taxpayer, which is a fascist economy.

Quote

4. where is the incentive for them NOT to create the same mess again?
4. PLCs such as banks are subject to an external audit once a year. Auditors check no corrupt has gone on, they put in place the controls to prevent corruption and they assess risks of failure. It is very difficult for dodgy, risky practices to slip past the auditors unless the auditors arent up to their jobs or the government is applying pressure to them to make them turn a blind eye.

yada, yada, yada. why did the auditors not prevent the problem in the first place? or are you saying they were bad boys, but from now on they'll be good boys? junk mortgages were rated as AAA by the ratings agencies! where were the auditors?

[acidhead]

Br Cornelius, on 01 October 2012 - 06:02 AM, said:

A currency with interest automatically causes inflation of that currency - which cannot exist in a supposed fixed money supply such as the Gold Standard. This is the built in flawof the FED system.

Br Cornelius

Inflation is Risk.  It's the built in mechanism in a free market capitalism system that has historically delivered much more positive results than poor ones.  Inflation deters hoarding and encourages spending.  It's how the society moves forward to better itself.   Without risk the individual will hoard their money.  This leads to banks runs and bankruptcies.  A extrinsic metal monetary system self regulates the free market by keeping the banks in check by the reserves they hold. Risk regulates those willing to hold themselves responsible for the problems that could occur from taking the risk.

Edited by acidhead, 02 October 2012 - 04:56 AM.

[Br Cornelius]

acidhead, on 02 October 2012 - 04:54 AM, said:

Inflation is Risk.  It's the built in mechanism in a free market capitalism system that has historically delivered much more positive results than poor ones.  Inflation deters hoarding and encourages spending.  It's how the society moves forward to better itself.   Without risk the individual will hoard their money.  This leads to banks runs and bankruptcies.  A extrinsic metal monetary system self regulates the free market by keeping the banks in check by the reserves they hold. Risk regulates those willing to hold themselves responsible for the problems that could occur from taking the risk.

You are in favour of a currency which ultimately reduces to nothing and yet you claim to be in favour of the Gold standard. Maybe you cannot see the irony in that.

Br Cornelius

[acidhead]

Br Cornelius, on 02 October 2012 - 06:31 AM, said:

You are in favour of a currency which ultimately reduces to nothing and yet you claim to be in favour of the Gold standard. Maybe you cannot see the irony in that.

Br Cornelius

Gold would never reduce itself to nothing.. it's not possible.