On June 06 2011 17:09 Romantic wrote: Hiss, people think money is a conspiracy\pyramid scheme lol.
I don't see why people are hung up on the idea not all debts can be paid back at once
Being a perpetual debt slave bothers me sometimes. At least there is starcraft to pacify me.
Debt isn't a bad thing. You'd have to demonstrate why debt is a bad thing.
People need loans for school, buying a home, buying a car, starting a business. People have capital and you are in need of it; people who are willing to pay the interest rate probably do it because they are doing something productive with it.
An economy with no debt would be an economy without lenders.
The banker is just a middle man, it isn't needed, it's just a way to leech wealth. At the top level the capital is created from things that are intrinsically worthless.
Supermarkets and used car salesmen are just middle men. Are they leeches or do they perform a service of finding buyers and sellers and putting them together (in the case of banks, finding lenders and borrowers)?
On June 06 2011 16:23 StorkHwaiting wrote: The question is why is this a problem? Do you seriously expect a currency system that's not for profit?
Isn't it a problem that this administrative profit is going to a private company for a service the government could be doing themselves?
Can't the government just get rid of the fed and do this service easy? Don't you think we're paying for a HUGELY overpriced service compared to what it could be? Aren't we wasting money? Isn't that equivalent to embezzlement?
The only problem I have is that unnecessary money is going from public -> private for no good reason. If central banks were 100% public, that would be fine.
On June 06 2011 17:09 Romantic wrote: Hiss, people think money is a conspiracy\pyramid scheme lol.
I don't see why people are hung up on the idea not all debts can be paid back at once
Being a perpetual debt slave bothers me sometimes. At least there is starcraft to pacify me.
Debt isn't a bad thing. You'd have to demonstrate why debt is a bad thing.
People need loans for school, buying a home, buying a car, starting a business. People have capital and you are in need of it; people who are willing to pay the interest rate probably do it because they are doing something productive with it.
An economy with no debt would be an economy without lenders.
The banker is just a middle man, it isn't needed, it's just a way to leech wealth. At the top level the capital is created from things that are intrinsically worthless.
Supermarkets and used car salesmen are just middle men. Are they leeches or do they perform a service of finding buyers and sellers and putting them together (in the case of banks, finding lenders and borrowers)?
Supermarkets and used car salesman cannot create cars and groceries from ink and paper.
On June 06 2011 16:23 StorkHwaiting wrote: The question is why is this a problem? Do you seriously expect a currency system that's not for profit?
Isn't it a problem that this administrative profit is going to a private company for a service the government could be doing themselves?
Can't the government just get rid of the fed and do this service easy? Don't you think we're paying for a HUGELY overpriced service compared to what it could be? Aren't we wasting money? Isn't that equivalent to embezzlement?
Theoretically they could - the federal reserve has only been around since 1913, it is in their power according to the law, but they won't because they have no incentive to. The federal reserve system works out very well for them
On June 06 2011 17:09 Romantic wrote: Hiss, people think money is a conspiracy\pyramid scheme lol.
I don't see why people are hung up on the idea not all debts can be paid back at once
Being a perpetual debt slave bothers me sometimes. At least there is starcraft to pacify me.
Debt isn't a bad thing. You'd have to demonstrate why debt is a bad thing.
People need loans for school, buying a home, buying a car, starting a business. People have capital and you are in need of it; people who are willing to pay the interest rate probably do it because they are doing something productive with it.
An economy with no debt would be an economy without lenders.
The banker is just a middle man, it isn't needed, it's just a way to leech wealth. At the top level the capital is created from things that are intrinsically worthless.
Supermarkets and used car salesmen are just middle men. Are they leeches or do they perform a service of finding buyers and sellers and putting them together (in the case of banks, finding lenders and borrowers)?
Supermarkets and used car salesman cannot create cars and groceries from ink and paper.
You just have a problem with fractional reserve banking? Ought to say that to begin with!
On June 06 2011 17:21 VIB wrote: If central banks were 100% public, that would be fine.
On June 06 2011 17:30 Romantic wrote: What does 100% public mean?
100% of it's profit going to government? In most countries the central bank is partly or entirely made of private capital. So that money the government pays from debts goes to private bankers. Money that could be used to build infrastructure going to bankers.
The whole "scam" people talk about is that we're paying to private bankers money that we didn't need to pay in the first place.
On June 06 2011 17:30 Romantic wrote: What does 100% public mean?
100% of it's profit going to government? In most countries the central bank is partly or entirely made of private capital. So that money the government pays from debts goes to private bankers. Money that could be used to build infrastructure going to bankers.
The whole "scam" people talk about is that we're paying to private bankers money that we didn't need to pay in the first place.
I don't understand. In most countries the central bank has the power to directly create currency, set some key interest rates, etc. Made up of private capital...?
Also, 100% of the US Federal Reserve's profit is deposited in the US treasury.
On June 06 2011 16:23 StorkHwaiting wrote: The question is why is this a problem? Do you seriously expect a currency system that's not for profit?
Isn't it a problem that this administrative profit is going to a private company for a service the government could be doing themselves?
Can't the government just get rid of the fed and do this service easy? Don't you think we're paying for a HUGELY overpriced service compared to what it could be? Aren't we wasting money? Isn't that equivalent to embezzlement?
The only problem I have is that unnecessary money is going from public -> private for no good reason. If central banks were 100% public, that would be fine.
Oh, you mean Communism. I thought this debate ended in 1989.
On June 06 2011 17:30 Romantic wrote: What does 100% public mean?
100% of it's profit going to government? In most countries the central bank is partly or entirely made of private capital. So that money the government pays from debts goes to private bankers. Money that could be used to build infrastructure going to bankers.
The whole "scam" people talk about is that we're paying to private bankers money that we didn't need to pay in the first place.
I don't understand. In most countries the central bank has the power to directly create currency, set some key interest rates, etc. Made up of private capital...?
Also, 100% of the US Federal Reserve's profit is deposited in the US treasury.
This is correct. The Fed's "profits" go back to the gov't. Although 6% dividend is always paid out to private bank shareholders first.
On June 06 2011 13:48 phyren wrote: I couldn;t finish this. It seems really dumb and oversimplified too much. He's acting like people only ever get assets by borrowing them from the banks, but that just isn't true. On an individual level, people work and make money for it. On a societal level there is production, i.e. growing food/building properties/etc.
I think the financial system is pretty messed up, but this isn't how.
You forgot the highest level, where people print ink on paper and are paid trillions for it.
Can you document specific cases of people or banks earning trillions?
Why?
Because the federal reserve in 2010 (its most profitable year to date) earned $3 billion in total profits after you consider the $79 billion given to the Treasury. Therefore, its illogical to conclude they are buying out all these politicians, etc...with trillions of dollars. And your statement that people and banks are getting trillions is completely incorrect. If it was correct, you would be able to document them. Why would anybody believe you if you can't even document a specific case where people or businesses have gotten trillions from our 'corrupt' banking system and/or central bank? I believe you made the trillions figure up, probably because you are sheepishly babbling what you heard a conspiracy theorist talk show host say, and until you can find specific examples and prove them your statements have absolutely no merit. If you did have an argument, you would be in the courtrooms.
Apparently I should of checked up on this blog again in the past couple days. I just decided to ignore it after ridiculous comments without support about people being paid trillions to print money.
TreeMonkeys, here's an example of the government creating money and it not going on bank balance sheets, this is gonna blow your mind.
They buy their own treasury bonds. There ya go. In quantitative easing programs the government has been monetizing the debt by purchasing in the bond market.
Don't ask for sources either, you won't provide them, neither will I.
There is also a subtext about fiat currency being bad here, why is money based off of shiny, basically worthless metals any better?
Money creation works because there is trust in the system so that the Bank can lend out a lot more than its assets. This isn't a government conspiracy but instead a way to help economic growth. This means it is possible for the economy to have a substantial amount of credit or debt to kickstart investments, improve liquidity in the economy, and make people better off.
The huge amount of debt in the US economy is because of people buying crap they can't afford to and then their assets doing down in value to they can't pay back their liabilities, to use the terminology of the video. Yes, some of that was down to some of the greed of the financial system but that wasn't what was discussed in the video.
There is no such thing as debt you can't repay in the modern age. While people used to become indentured servants, slaves, killed, thrown in debtors' prisons, modern laws mean people can declare bankruptcy, firms can go into administration or reorganise or liquidate. Countries can default or print money. None of these are desirable, of course, but unless you are borrowing money from Russian mobsters, you will get another chance.
I've taken my fair share of economics courses (too much even), and are you saying this one guy is more credible than hundreds of years of academic research and debate? This is sensationalist BS, which is why it's on Youtube and not economics textbooks.
Not going to lie, I saw the title of this thread, saw who made it, and lol'ed, because I knew what it was about. And I was correct.
Here is the video in synopsis
HURR DURR DEBT BAD! FED BAD! SENSATIONALISM GOOD!
And do you honestly think the government would do a better job managing one of the world's most important economies than a private institution? I'm scared even thinking about it.
EPT
