| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Alizee-
United States845 Posts
"That is what our money system is. If there were no debts in our money system, there wouldn't be any money." -Marriner S. Eccles, Chariman and Governor of the Federal Reserve Board Which completely blows my mind. The people who perpetuate the bastardized system more or less say it how it is and someone argues against it. | ||
|
Choros
Australia530 Posts
| ||
|
Choros
Australia530 Posts
I am an economics major but that is pretty much irrelevant in this context in my opinion. The Federal Reserve is a private company who runs for a profit. There are former members of the Reserve sitting in the Bush administration right now it would appear to me that they have intentionally generated massive budget defecits for their own profit. The government borrows 500billion dollars, the federal reserve creates it out of thin air. The federal reserve earns hundreds of billions of dollars of profit for their effort. Seems a pretty good deal. The argument that the Federal Reserve is a private company is not controversial. The argument that it runs for a profit is highly controversial. If you look at the Federal Reserves own website you will find it says that the Federal Reserve does not run for a profit, most of its (absolutely frigging enormous) revenues are taken up in costs and what profit remains are handed over to the Government. Now i have not heard of the government earning hundreds of billions of dollars a year thanks to the Federal Reserve. I conclude that the reserve earns an obscene profit at the expense of the America tax payer and they funnel these profits through 'costs', and then into their Swiss bank accounts for example. This is placing immense pressure upon the American economic system, and upon the capacity of the federal government to actually help that economic system. It now buckling under the strain. | ||
|
babypo0
Korea (South)66 Posts
ohh really. well then i eat my words. what country is the server in? | ||
|
babypo0
Korea (South)66 Posts
On October 06 2008 11:05 Alizee- wrote: As far as I'm concerned, Mahnini is arguing against the quote of: "That is what our money system is. If there were no debts in our money system, there wouldn't be any money." -Marriner S. Eccles, Chariman and Governor of the Federal Reserve Board Which completely blows my mind. The people who perpetuate the bastardized system more or less say it how it is and someone argues against it. hes not against the truthfulness of that quote, but he's pointing out to the skeptics and naysayers that even the ones at the top controlling this big monster acknowledge mahnini's argument that this system is not the way to go. in fact, that statement is dead on and should shut up naysayers who deny that the FED creates all the money it wants, and is responsible for over 99% of the inflation in the last century. so it's whatever you focus on. i agree with that statement at the same time i disagree with it - agree that that is how our system works, and disagree that that statement justifies the continuation of it. but then i haven't read this entire thread, just the gist of it, so i could be wrong about mahnini. but if so, then ya. | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
Some argue that since debt and the interest on the debt can only be paid in the same form of money, the total debt (principal plus interest) can never be paid in a debt-based monetary system unless more money is created through the same process. For example: if 100 credits are created and loaned into the economy at 10% per year, at the end of the year 110 credits will be needed to pay the loan and extinguish the debt. However, since the additional 10 credits does not yet exist, it too must be borrowed. To some, this implies that debt must grow exponentially in order for the monetary system to remain solvent.[27][28] Others argue that there is in fact no mathematical necessity for the money supply in a debt-based system to grow, since the interest portion of loan payments is not taken out of circulation, but goes into the lender’s account, where it can be spent back into circulation and eventually be used to pay off some loan principal. The "exponential" growth of debt need not be a concern because if GDP growth is positive, GDP is also growing exponentially and the ratio of debt to GDP may improve. End. | ||
|
babypo0
Korea (South)66 Posts
http://www.marksquotes.com/Founding-Fathers/ | ||
|
LilClinkin
Australia667 Posts
On October 06 2008 12:27 mahnini wrote: Ok, I'm already sick of this thread. Agree to disagree. End. This is the crux of the problem. You have a monetary system which functions with exponential growth, and it relies on exponential growth of real-world resources to back it. These resources may be goods or services, but it's pretty logical to me that you can't have exponential growth of anything in a finite system ie. our planet earth. The system is doomed to collapse because of this. Whether the collapse happens now or in 1000 years, it will eventually happen. | ||
|
LilClinkin
Australia667 Posts
| ||
|
fight_or_flight
United States3988 Posts
On October 06 2008 12:27 mahnini wrote: Ok, I'm already sick of this thread. Agree to disagree. End. So I guess their argument is that if the GDP grows at the same rate as the money supply, there will always be enough new collateral to put up to generate new loans. I don't think I like this argument very much...because it seems like mixing up the cause and effect. GDP is at least somewhat dependent on easy credit. When people are maxed out on debt, they are unable to borrow anymore, and deflation happens. For example http://www.housingbubblebust.com/GDP/Depression.html (edit: notice the time lag between the initial crash and when the GDP dropped....shows that GDP may be more of an effect than a cause) Spending the interest back into the economy still causes it to be deposited into banks, so they can loan out even more....it doesn't matter if the bank immediately loans it out, or if they buy a new vault and the company that sells it to them deposits it somewhere, so I don't understand what their argument is. edit: btw, it still requires an ever increasing GDP just not to collapse, which itself is questionable | ||
|
geometryb
United States1249 Posts
| ||
|
fight_or_flight
United States3988 Posts
| ||
|
zobz
Canada2175 Posts
| ||
|
ahrara_
Afghanistan1715 Posts
On October 06 2008 12:11 Choros wrote: By the way money is created out of thin air. For example in a single day a couple months ago the federal reserve created 350 billion dollars to 'generate liquidity', the Australian reserve bank created 3 billion dollars in a single morning a week ago. Reserve banks all around the world are creating money left right and center at the moment to deal with this problem. But printing money does not work it only makes the problems worse. The whole chunk of argument previous that i could bear to read can be summed up simply, mahini is basically an idiot. I don't mean to be offensive but your arguments are only correct in a world tragically different to our own, a perception that those behind this system actively try to proliferate. Although i will qualify that by conceding that some points are valid and I admit to not reading it all. I am an economics major but that is pretty much irrelevant in this context in my opinion. The Federal Reserve is a private company who runs for a profit. There are former members of the Reserve sitting in the Bush administration right now it would appear to me that they have intentionally generated massive budget defecits for their own profit. The government borrows 500billion dollars, the federal reserve creates it out of thin air. The federal reserve earns hundreds of billions of dollars of profit for their effort. Seems a pretty good deal. The argument that the Federal Reserve is a private company is not controversial. The argument that it runs for a profit is highly controversial. If you look at the Federal Reserves own website you will find it says that the Federal Reserve does not run for a profit, most of its (absolutely frigging enormous) revenues are taken up in costs and what profit remains are handed over to the Government. Now i have not heard of the government earning hundreds of billions of dollars a year thanks to the Federal Reserve. I conclude that the reserve earns an obscene profit at the expense of the America tax payer and they funnel these profits through 'costs', and then into their Swiss bank accounts for example. This is placing immense pressure upon the American economic system, and upon the capacity of the federal government to actually help that economic system. It now buckling under the strain. This is the fucking stupidest post in this entire thread. It fucking hurt to read it. The sheer fucking factual inaccuracy and dishonest idiocy made my ears ring and my anus bleed. In fact, when I read it aloud to my dog, he dropped dead of a brain aneurysm. It was so full of shit my large intestine couldn't compete. I couldn't post for a while because the internets got clogged, the tubes burst, and now my monitor is bleeding shit. There's so much shit here even Mike Rowe wouldn't touch it. They had McCain take a look and the sheer fucking shittiness of it caused him to have a stroke and die. Palin then commented, "EVEN TRIG'S DIAPER DOESN'T HAVE THAT MUCH SHIT." SHITTY. YOUR POST IS SHITTY. First, I don't claim to have the economics knowledge to attempt to debunk the theory here. But I do have a fucking problem with SHIT being posted on my TL, all over my intertubes 1.) The federal reserve does not print money. yes you can argue that it causes net inflation. but the next person to arbitrarily claim that the fed prints money or makes money appear through a secret incantation known only to the federal reserve chairman and that is passed down through an ancient rite of dance and ritual will a.) be humiliated at the revelation of their UTTER FUCKING IGNORANCE of how the fed works b.) have their testicles forcibly stapled over their hands to force them to think harder before they post. Printing of currency is not even under its jurisdiction. That's managed by the treasury. The federal reserve lends money by drawing from its own funds which are unrelated with the rest of government spending. This revenue is from government securities, its lending operations, and other esoteric shit. 2.) Mahnini is an idiot because he disagrees with you? What the fuck as far as having the facts wrong and not thoroughly understanding what they're talking about fightorflight is just as much of an idiot because as far as who is doing a better job of argument here, mahnini has more substance and is way more responsive, and has better warrants to his arguments. As opposed to absolute nonsense, unwarranted, castle in the sky claims like: i have not heard of the government earning hundreds of billions of dollars a year thanks to the Federal Reserve. I conclude that the reserve earns an obscene profit at the expense of the America tax payer and they funnel these profits through 'costs', and then into their Swiss bank accounts for example. WHAT. Every federal reserve branch pays 100% in income tax. Did you just run out of crazy ideas and decide to start talking about swiss bank accounts? Did your mental dialogue go something like: "Well if they buy the bullshit I posted so far they'll buy this shit about swiss bank accounts!" Did you proceed to stroke yourself to orgasm at the realization of your boundless genius? Did you cum? WAS IT PLEASANT, YOUR NARCISSISTIC SELF-PLEASURE? I don't think I like this argument very much...because it seems like mixing up the cause and effect. GDP is at least somewhat dependent on easy credit. When people are maxed out on debt, they are unable to borrow anymore, and deflation happens. is a good example of the kind of argument this entire shitty thread has been plagued with, admittedly from both sides. edit: ohhh the comment about the dog above was by no means a jab at pubbanana, i didn't even realize when i wrote it o_O | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
wesside bitches | ||
|
fight_or_flight
United States3988 Posts
On October 06 2008 15:31 ahrara_ wrote: is a good example of the kind of argument this entire shitty thread has been plagued with, admittedly from both sides. I said I didn't like it, not that I necessarily disagreed with it. But you're right, thats why I didn't go into economics. The whole field is full of similar shitty arguments. | ||
|
tttt
United States386 Posts
If you have, congrats, but that in no way puts you into the minority who actually has a clue of what's going on right now. Absurd conspiracy theories are appealing because of their simplicity. That doesn't make them reasonable, factual or truthful. Please, for anyone reading this thread, don't waste your time letting a pack of retards shit the contents of their brains into yours. PM me, and I'll be more than happy to give you the breakdown of the world financial system. | ||
|
Choros
Australia530 Posts
On October 06 2008 16:53 tttt wrote: In all fairness, how many of you kind folks have taken even an intro macro class in college? If you have, congrats, but that in no way puts you into the minority who actually has a clue of what's going on right now. Absurd conspiracy theories are appealing because of their simplicity. That doesn't make them reasonable, factual or truthful. Please, for anyone reading this thread, don't waste your time letting a pack of retards shit the contents of their brains into yours. PM me, and I'll be more than happy to give you the breakdown of the world financial system. It would appear that much of the time education = close mindedness. Understanding the mechanics of this system and understanding the insufficient paradigms upon which contemporary economic management are build can as it is in my case leave one disillusioned about its fundamental incompetence. But often it seems to lead only to indoctrination and the utter rejection of anything which would disagree with what they already believe even though the truth is right before their eyes. You go back to ancient Rome and you say conspiracy to someone and they will say 'shut the fuck up you wanna get killed' they understood the reality that conspiracies are very real particularly when they involve money and power. Yet today you say 'conspiracy' and people assume it will be some amusing falsehood. You want to reject conspiracy theories about reptilian aliens from the fourth dimension, fine go ahead. But reject conspiracy theories which revolve around power and money at your peril. What better way to cover up their mischievous ways then to proliferate this concept that conspiracy theories are false by definition its self. You might as well write it in the dictionary Conspiracy theory = something that is wrong. Clearly this is not the case. It would appear to be a human constant that there are some people who will not accept anything which exists beyond that which they already have accepted to be the truth. History has shown such people are wrong more often that they are right but there is nothing which will change their mind and the more evidence you provide the more violent their attempts to protect the falsehood. | ||
|
ahrara_
Afghanistan1715 Posts
fuck education that shit is so old school get it old school LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL History has shown such people are wrong more often that they are right but there is nothing which will change their mind and the more evidence you provide the more violent their attempts to protect the falsehood. Please please please please please please please continue making such baseless claims. They make you so much more credible than you already are!!!111 | ||
|
fight_or_flight
United States3988 Posts
On October 06 2008 16:53 tttt wrote: Absurd conspiracy theories are appealing because of their simplicity. That doesn't make them reasonable, factual or truthful. Ah, it is absurd that banks create money then? Where is this conspiracy theory you speak of? Please, for anyone reading this thread, don't waste your time letting a pack of retards shit the contents of their brains into yours. PM me, and I'll be more than happy to give you the breakdown of the world financial system. Your right, we should accept what the analysts on FOX tell us and not think for ourselves. Or just accept what your textbook tells you. I took an intro economics class in college and there was a question from the textbook: "Is there any danger for the Federal Government borrowing money?" Answer: "No, because it can always borrow more money to cover the interest." Its just ridiculous. This thread has been discussing the most basic, mundane things, which your macroeconomics classes probably don't even cover because they are implicitly assumed. If there is some specific thing you disagree with, feel free to point it out. This seams similar to the history of science, which I can speak with more authority because I have an EE/physics degree. What is taught in the classroom is always incorrect, because of our incomplete understanding of science. However, it generally happens that the strict education and view of most scientists creates dogma which ultimately hinders scientific progress. Time after time, in fact, almost every great discovery is rejected by the discovers peers. From Galileo to quantum mechanics, more times than not a new idea comes to the forefront only when its opponents die off. This is a subject I've posted on many many times. edit: + Show Spoiler [scientists who faced this problem for…] + "...the scientist makes use of a whole arsenal of concepts which he imbibed practically with his mother's milk; and seldom if ever is he aware of the eternally problematic character of his concepts. He uses this conceptual material, or, speaking more exactly, these conceptual tools of thought, as something obviously, immutably given; something having an objective value of truth which is hardly even, and in any case not seriously, to be doubted. ...in the interests of science it is necessary over and over again to engage in the critique of these fundamental concepts, in order that we may not unconsciously be ruled by them." -Albert Einstein "…science is not the danger; scientists encouraged to do bad science to survive are.” … "…changing the way modern science is funded is an enormous undertaking, but it is a necessary one if we want to protect our future. Call it managed risk." -Smith "Anybody who has studied the history of science or worked as a scientist knows that whenever something novel is discovered or proposed, there is a polarization of scientists, with hostility and bitterness that may last for generations. What wins arguments is scientific fact, and that may change as the years go by. A good example of this is the geological theory of continental drift, as proposed by Wegener in 1912. When I studied geology around 1950, continental drift was acknowledged in my undergraduate textbook as a crank theory. The first serious confirmation was in 1956, and it was finally established as the dominant theory in the early 1970s. Until that time, anybody who admitted that he or she believed in continental drift was the subject of derision and scorn. Sorry, folks, science is not and has never been the 'idealized portrait painted in textbooks'." -Allan Blair "…I suggest that most revolutions in science have taken place outside the lofty arena of the refereed journals, and with good reason. The philosophy by which these journals govern themselves virtually precludes publication of ideas that challenge an existing consensus." -William K. George "An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning." -Max Planck "We used to be able to say things once; if the message was reasonable, it had a good chance of becoming a permanent part of the structure of the field. Today, a single publication is lost; if we say it only once, it will be presumed that we have changed our mind, and we therefore must publish repeatedly. This further fuels the large publication volume that requires us to repeat." -Rolf Landauer "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible he is very probably wrong." [Clarke's First Law] | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
WardiTV Invitational
ByuN vs Percival
Percival vs Rogue
Percival vs Classic
ByuN vs Classic
ByuN vs Rogue
Classic vs Rogue
IPSL
DragOn vs Sziky
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
WardiTV Invitational
WardiTV Invitational
The PondCast
All Star Teams
INnoVation vs soO
sOs vs Scarlett
CranKy Ducklings
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
