Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Telegraph)   The IMF makes a suggestion that will cause US libertarians to crawl into a fetal position tightly clutching their copies of Atlas Shrugged softy murmuring "Ron Paul will save us. Ron Paul will save us"   (telegraph.co.uk) divider line 388
    More: Unlikely, Atlas Shrugged, Ron Paul, International Monetary Fund, fiat moneys, intrinsic value, types of business, fractional reserve, money creation  
•       •       •

25339 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Oct 2012 at 1:10 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



388 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-10-22 08:59:46 AM  
So wait, all we have to do is put Congress in charge of the money supply and everything will be wonderful and shiny? Have they MET our farking Congress?
 
2012-10-22 09:10:55 AM  

flucto: So wait, all we have to do is put Congress in charge of the money supply and everything will be wonderful and shiny? Have they MET our farking Congress?


There is much to what you say. But, have you seen how the banks have done so much to for us?
 
2012-10-22 09:24:33 AM  

jasonvatch: There is much to what you say. But, have you seen how the banks have done so much to for us?


I am not defending the Fed, but handing the money supply to Congress doesn't seem like a net upgrade. That the IMF thinks this is a good plan is not really comforting.
 
2012-10-22 09:44:16 AM  

flucto: jasonvatch: There is much to what you say. But, have you seen how the banks have done so much to for us?

I am not defending the Fed, but handing the money supply to Congress doesn't seem like a net upgrade. That the IMF thinks this is a good plan is not really comforting.


It does seem like we could jump out of the frying pan and into the fire. Part of me thinks 'better the devil you know is going to continue farking you over at every opportunity', rather than switch to a new method that gives control over to a body that will fark you over, you just don't know how badly yet.

Or am I too cynical?
 
2012-10-22 10:05:13 AM  

Slaxl: Or am I too cynical?


Take the money out of the hands of people that care only about money. That's progress; the rest we can figure out.
 
2012-10-22 10:07:03 AM  
PRIVATIZE MONEY RON PAUL!!!!
 
2012-10-22 10:25:39 AM  

Slaxl: flucto: jasonvatch: There is much to what you say. But, have you seen how the banks have done so much to for us?

I am not defending the Fed, but handing the money supply to Congress doesn't seem like a net upgrade. That the IMF thinks this is a good plan is not really comforting.

It does seem like we could jump out of the frying pan and into the fire. Part of me thinks 'better the devil you know is going to continue farking you over at every opportunity', rather than switch to a new method that gives control over to a body that will fark you over, you just don't know how badly yet.

Or am I too cynical?


Why on Earth would you keep using a system that you know for a fact is incredibly damaging just because you're afraid of a known system that has been proven to be historically stable - or so this study claims at any rate, I'm not expert. That's insane to refuse to switch. That's the same reasoning that a woman who is beaten by her husband every night uses.
 
2012-10-22 10:46:11 AM  

GAT_00: Slaxl: flucto: jasonvatch: There is much to what you say. But, have you seen how the banks have done so much to for us?

I am not defending the Fed, but handing the money supply to Congress doesn't seem like a net upgrade. That the IMF thinks this is a good plan is not really comforting.

It does seem like we could jump out of the frying pan and into the fire. Part of me thinks 'better the devil you know is going to continue farking you over at every opportunity', rather than switch to a new method that gives control over to a body that will fark you over, you just don't know how badly yet.

Or am I too cynical?

Why on Earth would you keep using a system that you know for a fact is incredibly damaging just because you're afraid of a known system that has been proven to be historically stable - or so this study claims at any rate, I'm not expert. That's insane to refuse to switch. That's the same reasoning that a woman who is beaten by her husband every night uses.


More like the same reasoning of a woman that is beaten by her husband contemplating leaving him, but the only other man who'll take her has an anger management issue and a history of violence.

But I suppose you're right, it is insane to accept a broken system simply because the unknown future is dark and scary. Better to try.
 
2012-10-22 11:07:20 AM  
Sounds like a great idea... but


2.bp.blogspot.com


Coming from the IMF???
 
2012-10-22 11:14:29 AM  

Amos Quito: Sounds like a great idea... but


[2.bp.blogspot.com image 578x522]


Coming from the IMF???


From the paper:

This Working Paper should not be reported as representing the views of the IMF.
The views expressed in this Working Paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent
those of the IMF or IMF policy. Working Papers describe research in progress by the author(s) and are
published to elicit comments and to further debate.


Their bolding. PDF warning
 
2012-10-22 11:27:03 AM  
Since subby apparently thinks that anyone that disagrees with larger government and against the fed is either a Ron Paul fan or an Randian, allow me to clarify.

1. Ron Paul is not a libertarian, is not widely supported by libertarians.
2. Libertarianism is not the same as Randianism.

Back to the article. HELL NO. The IMF is farking insane. The solution to irresponsible deficit spending is to take over the private money supply? Like we're supposed to trust the government with money?

Riiiggggghhhhtttt.
 
2012-10-22 11:43:43 AM  

slayer199: 1. Ron Paul is not a libertarian, is not widely supported by libertarians.


the first part of that statement is true, the second part is pants-on-fire bullshiat. every self described libertarian i know is a paul fan

slayer199: 2. Libertarianism is not the same as Randianism.


in theory, no. in practice in the United States? almost every self-described Libertarian (note the Capital L) is a randite.
 
2012-10-22 11:52:27 AM  

slayer199: Ron Paul is not a libertarian, is not widely supported by libertarians.


i575.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-22 12:27:45 PM  
No fractional reserve banking? Good luck getting credit....
 
2012-10-22 12:30:55 PM  

Kazan: slayer199: 1. Ron Paul is not a libertarian, is not widely supported by libertarians.

the first part of that statement is true, the second part is pants-on-fire bullshiat. every self described libertarian i know is a paul fan

slayer199: 2. Libertarianism is not the same as Randianism.

in theory, no. in practice in the United States? almost every self-described Libertarian (note the Capital L) is a randite.


Uh, no. Ron Paul is supported by libertarian-leaning Republicans, not Libertarians. I don't know any Libertarians that support Ron Paul. He's a Republican with some libertarian-leaning ideas....

GAT_00: slayer199: Ron Paul is not a libertarian, is not widely supported by libertarians.

[i575.photobucket.com image 411x110]


Coming from a guy that thinks Reason is a Republican-backed magazine and is pro-police...I'll sleep well at night knowing you still have no understanding of the LP or libertarianism.
 
2012-10-22 01:12:57 PM  
Is anyone else annoyed at the British use of "pc" instead of the % sign?
 
2012-10-22 01:13:47 PM  
BTW:

We return to the historical norm, before Charles II placed control of the money supply in private hands with the English Free Coinage Act of 1666.

Yeah, this isn't going to alarm any conspiracy theorists.
 
2012-10-22 01:14:17 PM  

vartian: Slaxl: Or am I too cynical?

Take the money out of the hands of people that care only about money. That's progress; the rest we can figure out.


Giving it to Congress doesn't do that.
 
2012-10-22 01:15:00 PM  
Yep

Europe is not bailing out Greece.

It's bailing out the bankers.

It's time to tell them to fark off.
 
2012-10-22 01:15:09 PM  
Make it so.
 
2012-10-22 01:15:50 PM  

Arkanaut: Is anyone else annoyed at the British use of "pc" instead of the % sign?


Yes, we should bomb them immediately.
 
2012-10-22 01:15:59 PM  

slayer199: Uh, no. Ron Paul is supported by libertarian-leaning Republicans, not Libertarians. I don't know any Libertarians that support Ron Paul. He's a Republican with some libertarian-leaning ideas....


almost every farking Libertarian i have ever met is just a randite republican embarassed to call themselves republican.

there are almost not "little l" libertarians in the united states. which you're trying to claim to be. and quite frankly i don't buy what you're selling based on your posting history.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2012-10-22 01:16:22 PM  
Ron Paul libertarians = Corporate Anarchists.
 
2012-10-22 01:16:54 PM  

slayer199: Uh, no. Ron Paul is supported by libertarian-leaning Republicans, not Libertarians. I don't know any Libertarians that support Ron Paul. He's a Republican with some libertarian-leaning ideas....


LOL
 
2012-10-22 01:17:16 PM  

Arkanaut: Is anyone else annoyed at the British use of "pc" instead of the % sign?


YES
 
2012-10-22 01:17:38 PM  
Bankers, as they are at present, are not so great, but would a return to a medieval-style economy be better? Not likely.
 
2012-10-22 01:17:54 PM  
an end to fractional reserve banking is a tenet of right libertarianism. Not sure whatchoo mean, subs
 
2012-10-22 01:18:50 PM  
Ron Paul, Paul Ryan, Libertarians, and Fiscal Conservatives have been calling for doing away with the Fed and the existing banking system for over ten years. Subby's ignorance is sadly on display.

///If anyone will be found on the floor in the fetal position it would be Obama and all of his hedge fund friends that pay $35-50k per plate every night to feast with him.
 
2012-10-22 01:18:53 PM  

Kazan: slayer199: Uh, no. Ron Paul is supported by libertarian-leaning Republicans, not Libertarians. I don't know any Libertarians that support Ron Paul. He's a Republican with some libertarian-leaning ideas....

almost every farking Libertarian i have ever met is just a randite republican embarassed to call themselves republican.

there are almost not "little l" libertarians in the united states. which you're trying to claim to be. and quite frankly i don't buy what you're selling based on your posting history.


Ron Paul is a neo-confederate farkwit... much like most big Ls
 
2012-10-22 01:18:56 PM  

vartian: Take the money out of the hands of people that care only about money.


Hope you're willing to get violent. And be ready with the party purges, because money tends to change the people whose hands it lands in.
 
2012-10-22 01:19:05 PM  
Ron Paul is not Libertarian in the same way that Bush or Romney "aren't really conservatives"
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2012-10-22 01:19:57 PM  

tomcatadam: Ron Paul is not Libertarian in the same way that Bush or Romney "aren't really conservatives"


Q.E.D.
 
2012-10-22 01:20:32 PM  
IMF? Unbelievable.
 
2012-10-22 01:20:36 PM  
 
2012-10-22 01:21:15 PM  
"Specifically, it means an assault on "fractional reserve banking". If lenders are forced to put up 100pc reserve backing for deposits, they lose the exorbitant privilege of creating money out of thin air."

So... one of Ron Paul's positions?

And besides, the does the IMF do besides screwing over debt-ridden developing countries?
 
2012-10-22 01:22:08 PM  
Subby, you're trolling, and I'm pretty sure you don't know anything about banking, libertarians, monetary policy, or much else. But this is an interesting link, so thanks for that.
 
2012-10-22 01:22:09 PM  
"crawl into a fetal position tightly clutching their copies of Atlas Shrugged"

That is how they roll!
 
2012-10-22 01:22:56 PM  
This is a really stupid idea because we would be bankrupting ourselves.


Here's a quick and fascinating breakdown by total amount held and percentage of total U.S. debt, according to Business Insider:

The U.S. Treasury: $1.63 trillion (11.3 percent)
Social Security trust fund: $2.67 trillion (19 percent)
U.S. households: $959.4 billion (6.6 percent)
Private pension funds: $504.7 billion (3.5 percent)
State and local governments: $506.1 billion (3.5 percent)
Mutual funds: $300.5 billion (2 percent)
Commercial banks: $301.8 billion (2.1 percent)
State, local and federal retirement funds: $320.9 billion (2.2 percent)
Money market mutual funds: $337.7 billion (2.4 percent)


Hong Kong: $121.9 billion (0.9 percent)
Caribbean banking centers: $148.3 (1 percent)
Taiwan: $153.4 billion (1.1 percent)
Brazil: $211.4 billion (1.5 percent)
Oil exporting countries: $229.8 billion (1.6 percent)
United Kingdom: $346.5 billion (2.4 percent)
Japan: $912.4 billion (6.4 percent)
China: $1.16 trillion (8 percent)

We owe foreign firms, countries, and other entities about 4.5 trillion dollars and we owe US firms, people, and entities 9.8 trillion dollars.

Why the fark would we the American People cancel the debt or default? How does that make any sense at all?
 
2012-10-22 01:23:05 PM  
Lots of bickering between the big and little ell libertarians.
 
2012-10-22 01:23:10 PM  
It's not such a terrible idea depending on the particular flavor of democracy that your country uses. To give you an example in the Canadian system (parliamentary democracy) you just need to make sure that any major changes to monetary policy are confidence votes, then you need to make damn sure that nobody gets a majority government ever again.
 
2012-10-22 01:23:14 PM  

nmemkha: Does anyone know how we got into this mess?


Yes, step into my way-back machine and I'll take you and a journey to 1999 Link
 
2012-10-22 01:23:38 PM  
Meh, there have always been poor and rich. In the past revolution was the tool for equalizing...and so it shall be again.

We arent even close to that point yet. As long as people can still afford $5 cups of coffee and iproducts by the ton, then things will keep going.
 
2012-10-22 01:23:38 PM  

Kazan: in theory, no. in practice in the United States? almost every self-described Libertarian (note the Capital L) is a randite.


Most (big L) Libertarians have never read one of her books already through nor can discuss what her beliefs are so - no - I don't think most (big L) Libertarians in the US are followers of rand.

/there is a reason for that - Rand was an awful writer
 
2012-10-22 01:26:42 PM  

vartian: Slaxl: Or am I too cynical?

Take the money out of the hands of people that care only about money. That's progress; the rest we can figure out.


Everyone cares about money. They're humans.
 
2012-10-22 01:27:01 PM  

Nightsweat: Arkanaut: Is anyone else annoyed at the British use of "pc" instead of the % sign?

Yes, we should bomb them immediately.


Agreed
 
2012-10-22 01:27:23 PM  

Elegy: No fractional reserve banking? Good luck getting credit....


Is this a very subtle joke? Or are you trying to ironically ask a question emphatically stated in the article? The point was to end fractional reserve lending and eliminate the boom-bust credit cycle, so yes there would be no credit to go around.
 
2012-10-22 01:28:36 PM  

Mayhem of the Black Underclass: Elegy: No fractional reserve banking? Good luck getting credit....

Is this a very subtle joke? Or are you trying to ironically ask a question emphatically stated in the article? The point was to end fractional reserve lending and eliminate the boom-bust credit cycle, so yes there would be no credit to go around.


I think his point is that having near zero credit for consumers is a bad thing.
 
2012-10-22 01:29:23 PM  
Actually, that's kind of one of the suggestions of the Austrian School 'O Economics. If you want to spin up your libertarian friends, tell 'em you are in favor of "Fiat Currency"/
 
2012-10-22 01:29:33 PM  

Kazan: slayer199: 1. Ron Paul is not a libertarian, is not widely supported by libertarians.

the first part of that statement is true, the second part is pants-on-fire bullshiat. every self described libertarian i know is a paul fan

slayer199: 2. Libertarianism is not the same as Randianism.

in theory, no. in practice in the United States? almost every self-described Libertarian (note the Capital L) is a randite.


If they are self described libertarians that support Ron Paul, they are Republicans. Find an actual libertarian and you'll find that they usually think he is a racist steeplechaser with Alzheimer's.
 
2012-10-22 01:29:43 PM  

nmemkha: Does anyone know how we got into this mess?


Umm...what makes you think this is a mess? US deficit funding has created the greatest amount of wealth spread to the largest amount of people in the history of the world. It has funded low tax, large military, and world domination that Caesar could only dream about. Deficit spending defeated the last of the great enemies and proved once and for all that a Republic is the best government ever. It has funded decadence, sloth, corruption that would make Caligula drool.

In short US deficit spending and the debt is the greatest thing we the people could have ever done.

The only problem we have now is convincing the retarded right that taxes must increased to reduce the deficit, so the party can continue. The retarded right are the douche bags who never pony up a couple of bucks for the beer run, so the party can continue.
 
2012-10-22 01:29:57 PM  
Cue 'not sure if serious' pic...
 
2012-10-22 01:30:14 PM  
Plan hurts the elites.

Congress is controlled by the elites.

The Koch Brothers won't stand for this.

/Your new overlords didn't get to where they are by helping you.

//I just wonder what nation they are all headed to when they sink the major powers.
 
2012-10-22 01:30:37 PM  

gingerjet: Kazan: in theory, no. in practice in the United States? almost every self-described Libertarian (note the Capital L) is a randite.

Most (big L) Libertarians have never read one of her books already through nor can discuss what her beliefs are so - no - I don't think most (big L) Libertarians in the US are followers of rand.

/there is a reason for that - Rand was an awful writer


I have read her books, but aside from the villians being amusing caricatures of bureaucrats I found little of value in them.

Until either major party stops advocating limitless drone killings I can't possibly support them, so straight-ticket LP it is again for me this year.
 
2012-10-22 01:30:47 PM  

iq_in_binary: Kazan: slayer199: 1. Ron Paul is not a libertarian, is not widely supported by libertarians.

the first part of that statement is true, the second part is pants-on-fire bullshiat. every self described libertarian i know is a paul fan

slayer199: 2. Libertarianism is not the same as Randianism.

in theory, no. in practice in the United States? almost every self-described Libertarian (note the Capital L) is a randite.

If they are self described libertarians that support Ron Paul, they are Republicans. Find an actual libertarian and you'll find that they usually think he is a racist steeplechaser with Alzheimer's.


ding ding
 
2012-10-22 01:31:02 PM  

nmemkha: Does anyone know how we got into this mess?


Money being created as a debt instrument is not a problem in and of itself. It allows the money supply (and liquidity) to expand and contract as the market requires. Going back to the gold standard will severely impact liquidity, spur inflation, and push gold prices up (now you know why the gold-bugs want it). The system we have now allows high liquidity, high velocity, and a stable currency. Going to the IMF's plan would cause considerable inflation and would likely terrify the credit-markets - causing the type of global depression that TARP was created to prevent. Do we really want to do this now? Just because we hate bankers? All we need to do is close the tax loopholes and raise the top rates and we can circulate the bankers ill-gotten gains back into the markets.
 
2012-10-22 01:31:35 PM  

Kazan: the second part is pants-on-fire bullshiat. every self described libertarian i know is a paul fan


That's some good scientific sampling there Lou.
 
2012-10-22 01:32:11 PM  

Slaves2Darkness: nmemkha: Does anyone know how we got into this mess?

Umm...what makes you think this is a mess? US deficit funding has created the greatest amount of wealth spread to the largest amount of people in the history of the world. It has funded low tax, large military, and world domination that Caesar could only dream about. Deficit spending defeated the last of the great enemies and proved once and for all that a Republic is the best government ever. It has funded decadence, sloth, corruption that would make Caligula drool.

In short US deficit spending and the debt is the greatest thing we the people could have ever done.

The only problem we have now is convincing the retarded right that taxes must increased to reduce the deficit, so the party can continue. The retarded right are the douche bags who never pony up a couple of bucks for the beer run, so the party can continue.


Or we could abandon the foolish world domination bit.
 
2012-10-22 01:32:48 PM  
There should be an internet law about the probability of invocation of a Rand strawman in every thread about libertarianism. A "Randwin Law," if you will.

And as has been pointed out before...

GAT_00: From the paper:

This Working Paper should not be reported as representing the views of the IMF.
The views expressed in this Working Paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent
those of the IMF or IMF policy. Working Papers describe research in progress by the author(s) and are
published to elicit comments and to further debate.

Their bolding. PDF warning


Ambrose's historical inaccuracies about the role of money in human society notwithstanding (debasement of currencies and fiat money are what helped lead to the collapse of the civilizations he discusses - e.g. Diocletian), this article was pretty terrible.
 
2012-10-22 01:33:24 PM  

Elegy: No fractional reserve banking? Good luck getting credit....


Live within your means and you won't need credit.
 
2012-10-22 01:33:24 PM  

madgonad: All we need to do is close the tax loopholes and raise the top rates and we can circulate the bankers ill-gotten gains back into the markets.


Or the government could have let them go bankrupt.
 
2012-10-22 01:33:26 PM  

Slaves2Darkness: This is a really stupid idea because we would be bankrupting ourselves.


Here's a quick and fascinating breakdown by total amount held and percentage of total U.S. debt, according to Business Insider:

The U.S. Treasury: $1.63 trillion (11.3 percent)
Social Security trust fund: $2.67 trillion (19 percent)
U.S. households: $959.4 billion (6.6 percent)
Private pension funds: $504.7 billion (3.5 percent)
State and local governments: $506.1 billion (3.5 percent)
Mutual funds: $300.5 billion (2 percent)
Commercial banks: $301.8 billion (2.1 percent)
State, local and federal retirement funds: $320.9 billion (2.2 percent)
Money market mutual funds: $337.7 billion (2.4 percent)


Hong Kong: $121.9 billion (0.9 percent)
Caribbean banking centers: $148.3 (1 percent)
Taiwan: $153.4 billion (1.1 percent)
Brazil: $211.4 billion (1.5 percent)
Oil exporting countries: $229.8 billion (1.6 percent)
United Kingdom: $346.5 billion (2.4 percent)
Japan: $912.4 billion (6.4 percent)
China: $1.16 trillion (8 percent)

We owe foreign firms, countries, and other entities about 4.5 trillion dollars and we owe US firms, people, and entities 9.8 trillion dollars.

Why the fark would we the American People cancel the debt or default? How does that make any sense at all?


Now that is a good question.
 
2012-10-22 01:33:39 PM  
On behalf of everybody who owns a calculator and a history book, no sh*t, Sherlock.
 
2012-10-22 01:33:49 PM  
The ignorance from the left on display here is non-astonishing.
 
2012-10-22 01:34:03 PM  

DerAppie: Elegy: No fractional reserve banking? Good luck getting credit....

Live within your means and you won't need credit.


Right, but how do you start a business without credit?
 
2012-10-22 01:35:36 PM  

Slaves2Darkness: Oil exporting countries: $229.8 billion (1.6 percent)


I would have thought petrodollars would have driven this way up - what with oil prices over the last decade.
 
2012-10-22 01:35:47 PM  

Kazan: almost every farking Libertarian i have ever met is just a randite republican embarassed to call themselves republican.

there are almost not "little l" libertarians in the united states. which you're trying to claim to be. and quite frankly i don't buy what you're selling based on your posting history.


Apparently you suffer from selective memory or you have me confused with someone else.. I've voted Libertarian since '92. I was not a fan of Bush (I was very critical of Bush). I'm not a fan of Ron Paul. I've supported gay marriage, legalization of marijuana (and ending the War on Drugs in general), legalization of prostitution, shrinking of the military, cutting off of foreign aid (other than for natural disasters), open trade, open immigration, balanced budget, dramatically reducing the size and scope of the government, and pretty much every small-l libertarian ideal. Basically individual liberty with personal responsibility and smaller government.

What I find amusing is that lefties have such a hard time understanding libertarianism...other than "ZOMG, WANTING LESS GOVERNMENT IS BAD". I'll boil down libertarian philosophy down for you in a couple short lines.

Government exists to protect and defend individual liberty, enforce contracts, and provide physical infrastructure. That does not mean it's government's responsibility to protect me from myself or my poor life choices.
 
2012-10-22 01:36:09 PM  
Eliminating fractional reserve banking. Good thing there aren't legitimate, healthy uses for debt that most people/organizations need to function. What's not to love about requiring home buyers to either pay for it all in cash or wait X number of years for the system to expand enough so they can get a loan?

A much less insane idea is to scale down the multiplier from fractional reserves (say 6:1 instead of 9:1) and clearly divide the lenders from the investment houses. Lender agencies could even be taxed at significantly lower rates to subsidize the social benefit of safety and low risk. Investment agencies could only be allowed to buy loans and package them how they want, higher risk and higher taxes. Then, when the investment side crashes (again), you let them go. Survival of the fittest is what the big-L Libertarians champion, so give it to them. And for good measure, insurance agencies fall under the same protections as lending agencies.

But that's socialism, and it makes Supply-Side Baby Jesus cry.
 
2012-10-22 01:36:23 PM  

historycat: Plan hurts the elites.

Congress is controlled by the elites.

The Koch Brothers Soros Partisan Boogeymen won't stand for this.

/Your new overlords didn't get to where they are by helping you.

//I just wonder what nation they are all headed to when they sink the major powers.


OOGA BOOGA
 
2012-10-22 01:36:53 PM  

YixilTesiphon: DerAppie: Elegy: No fractional reserve banking? Good luck getting credit....

Live within your means and you won't need credit.

Right, but how do you start a business without credit?


Investors. They do this thing called investing.
 
2012-10-22 01:36:54 PM  

YixilTesiphon: DerAppie: Elegy: No fractional reserve banking? Good luck getting credit....

Live within your means and you won't need credit.

Right, but how do you start a business without credit?


Duh! You get the money from your dad. What are you... stupid?
 
2012-10-22 01:36:57 PM  

iq_in_binary: Kazan: slayer199: 1. Ron Paul is not a libertarian, is not widely supported by libertarians.

the first part of that statement is true, the second part is pants-on-fire bullshiat. every self described libertarian i know is a paul fan

slayer199: 2. Libertarianism is not the same as Randianism.

in theory, no. in practice in the United States? almost every self-described Libertarian (note the Capital L) is a randite.

If they are self described libertarians that support Ron Paul, they are Republicans. Find an actual libertarian and you'll find that they usually think he is a racist steeplechaser with Alzheimer's.


I'm an actual libertarian and not a Paul fan. I do like some of his ideas, but many are completely batshiat crazy. But I was actually a Philosophy major, and understand what libertarianism is, not just someone who thinks it means "less gubmint".

/actually has a real job with that degree
//basically works out to social liberal, fiscal conservative
 
2012-10-22 01:37:08 PM  
"Giving money & power to Congress is like giving whiskey & car keys to teenage boys" PJ O'Rourke
 
2012-10-22 01:37:32 PM  
FTFA: Unchallenged sovereign or Papal control over currencies persisted through the Middle Ages until England broke the mould in 1666. Benes and Kumhof say this was the start of the boom-bust era.

One might equally say that this opened the way to England's agricultural revolution in the early 18th Century, the industrial revolution soon after, and the greatest economic and technological leap ever seen. But let us not quibble


Waitaminute. Whether or not you agree that the concentration of capital is what drives progress; it's not a quibble.
 
2012-10-22 01:37:41 PM  
FTA: If you enacted this plan, it would devastate bank profits and cause a massive deflationary disaster. There would have to do `QE squared' to offset it," he said.

See, this here is the problem. Since when do bank profits take the #1 spot in the list of effects of this plan?
 
2012-10-22 01:37:46 PM  

Slaves2Darkness: nmemkha: Does anyone know how we got into this mess?

Umm...what makes you think this is a mess? US deficit funding has created the greatest amount of wealth spread to the largest amount of people in the history of the world. It has funded low tax, large military, and world domination that Caesar could only dream about. Deficit spending defeated the last of the great enemies and proved once and for all that a Republic is the best government ever. It has funded decadence, sloth, corruption that would make Caligula drool.

In short US deficit spending and the debt is the greatest thing we the people could have ever done.

The only problem we have now is convincing the retarded right that taxes must increased to reduce the deficit, so the party can continue. The retarded right are the douche bags who never pony up a couple of bucks for the beer run, so the party can continue.


You right, its not lending that is the problem. Its lending at interest.
 
2012-10-22 01:38:45 PM  
d23
Ron Paul libertarians = Corporate Anarchists.

An oxymoron. The internal structure of any corporation is fascism.
 
2012-10-22 01:38:47 PM  

CruJones: iq_in_binary: Kazan: slayer199: 1. Ron Paul is not a libertarian, is not widely supported by libertarians.

the first part of that statement is true, the second part is pants-on-fire bullshiat. every self described libertarian i know is a paul fan

slayer199: 2. Libertarianism is not the same as Randianism.

in theory, no. in practice in the United States? almost every self-described Libertarian (note the Capital L) is a randite.

If they are self described libertarians that support Ron Paul, they are Republicans. Find an actual libertarian and you'll find that they usually think he is a racist steeplechaser with Alzheimer's.

I'm an actual libertarian and not a Paul fan. I do like some of his ideas, but many are completely batshiat crazy. But I was actually a Philosophy major, and understand what libertarianism is, not just someone who thinks it means "less gubmint".

/actually has a real job with that degree
//basically works out to social liberal, fiscal conservative


So basically, you're intelligent enough to know that libertarianism and socialism are not mutually exclusive.
 
2012-10-22 01:39:09 PM  
I am amused by the assertion that our only options are to leave things as they are and turn it over to congress. Sure, plan for a change, that sounds good. Hand it to partisan maniacs and see a complete change of course every two years? Even uber-troll can't be that dumb.
 
2012-10-22 01:39:35 PM  

slayer199: I'll boil down libertarian philosophy down for you in a couple short lines.

Government exists to protect and defend individual liberty, enforce contracts, and provide physical infrastructure. That does not mean it's government's responsibility to protect me from myself or my poor life choices.


Probably could've gone shorter than that and simply stated that it's a philosophy based upon the non-aggression principle. Most of it flows primarily from that.
 
2012-10-22 01:39:39 PM  

david_gaithersburg: YixilTesiphon: DerAppie: Elegy: No fractional reserve banking? Good luck getting credit....

Live within your means and you won't need credit.

Right, but how do you start a business without credit?

Investors. They do this thing called investing.


Sure, but fractional reserve banking makes these things a lot easier.
 
2012-10-22 01:40:24 PM  

Slaves2Darkness: nmemkha: Does anyone know how we got into this mess?

Umm...what makes you think this is a mess? US deficit funding has created the greatest amount of wealth spread to the largest amount of people in the history of the world. It has funded low tax, large military, and world domination that Caesar could only dream about. Deficit spending defeated the last of the great enemies and proved once and for all that a Republic is the best government ever. It has funded decadence, sloth, corruption that would make Caligula drool.

In short US deficit spending and the debt is the greatest thing we the people could have ever done.

The only problem we have now is convincing the retarded right that taxes must increased to reduce the deficit, so the party can continue. The retarded right are the douche bags who never pony up a couple of bucks for the beer run, so the party can continue.


But you, the retarded left, just said that deficit spending is a good thing. Make up your mind child.
 
2012-10-22 01:40:42 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Eliminating fractional reserve banking. Good thing there aren't legitimate, healthy uses for debt that most people/organizations need to function. What's not to love about requiring home buyers to either pay for it all in cash or wait X number of years for the system to expand enough so they can get a loan?


You can eliminate fractional reserve banking and still have bank make home loans. Basically, a 100% reserve requirement only requires banks to maintain 100% of demand deposits on hand. It does not impact things such as CDs, bonds and other time deposits.

If I am a bank and you came to me with $500 and I promised to give you $550 a year from now, I can lend that $500 out without violating the 100% reserve requirement. However, if you came to me with $500 which you could demand at any time, I would be in violation if I were to lend out that money. Basically scenario A doesn't "create" money the way FRB does. The amount of $ in the system remains the same without any additions from the gov.

It would certainly reduce the easy access to credit but it does not eliminate credit.
 
2012-10-22 01:40:45 PM  

YixilTesiphon: Or the government could have let them go bankrupt.


I actually favored that. Do some of those quick - five day bankruptcies, like they did with GM. Essentially sell off the valuable parts to stable companies, pay the immediate debts, kill the shares, and give the bondholders a trim. The functional parts of the business would change ownership, the equitized executives would get nothing, and bonuses would all get cancelled.

The problem was at the time the Dow was going under 7,000 and there weren't many companies capable of buying. See, most business acquisitions are managed and/or financed by banks. In this case the BANKS were the problem and only a government had the resources to come in and take care of business. We did it through TARP instead of through bankruptcies - and it worked. People keep forgetting how scary it was getting...
 
2012-10-22 01:41:00 PM  
"Any carpet-bagger who tried to bid higher was beaten to a pulp."

If this is included in the plan count me in.
 
2012-10-22 01:41:31 PM  

iq_in_binary: CruJones: iq_in_binary: Kazan: slayer199: 1. Ron Paul is not a libertarian, is not widely supported by libertarians.

the first part of that statement is true, the second part is pants-on-fire bullshiat. every self described libertarian i know is a paul fan

slayer199: 2. Libertarianism is not the same as Randianism.

in theory, no. in practice in the United States? almost every self-described Libertarian (note the Capital L) is a randite.

If they are self described libertarians that support Ron Paul, they are Republicans. Find an actual libertarian and you'll find that they usually think he is a racist steeplechaser with Alzheimer's.

I'm an actual libertarian and not a Paul fan. I do like some of his ideas, but many are completely batshiat crazy. But I was actually a Philosophy major, and understand what libertarianism is, not just someone who thinks it means "less gubmint".

/actually has a real job with that degree
//basically works out to social liberal, fiscal conservative

So basically, you're intelligent enough to know that libertarianism and socialism are not mutually exclusive.


How are you defining socialism here? I am guessing that CruJones believes that private property is a good thing.
 
2012-10-22 01:41:42 PM  

CruJones: I'm an actual libertarian and not a Paul fan. I do like some of his ideas, but many are completely batshiat crazy. But I was actually a Philosophy major, and understand what libertarianism is, not just someone who thinks it means "less gubmint".

/actually has a real job with that degree
//basically works out to social liberal, fiscal conservative



i.chzbgr.com 

/had to.
 
2012-10-22 01:41:43 PM  
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRGGGHHHHH!
*sploosh*

Now that my head exploded, fractional reserve banking is not some magical power to conjure forth money. It is a mathematical side-effect of lending out money and accepting deposits. If I lend Bob $20, and he buys a bottle of cheap whiskey from Jack, who then asks me to hang on to the cash for him because he doesn't have pockets, and then I lend that $20 to Bill, I just created money. And I am not a bank, and I am not regulated by the feds.
 
2012-10-22 01:41:50 PM  

RanDomino: d23
Ron Paul libertarians = Corporate Anarchists.

An oxymoron. The internal structure of any corporation is fascism.


images.politico.com

fascist
 
2012-10-22 01:42:15 PM  
Ron Paul is a misplaced cum shot.
 
2012-10-22 01:43:17 PM  

slayer199: What I find amusing is that lefties have such a hard time understanding libertarianism...other than "ZOMG, WANTING LESS GOVERNMENT IS BAD". I'll boil down libertarian philosophy down for you in a couple short lines.


man...don't even try. The left will never understand and the right just thinks we are godless heathens.
 
2012-10-22 01:43:38 PM  

YixilTesiphon: DerAppie: Elegy: No fractional reserve banking? Good luck getting credit....

Live within your means and you won't need credit.

Right, but how do you start a business without credit?


Put up a decent bussiness plan and look for someone (corporations are people) who thinks that your plan has decent risk:reward ratio. In exchange for money (let us call that "interest" because it is what makes it "interesting" to invest) from your profits they will lend you money.
 
2012-10-22 01:44:07 PM  

YixilTesiphon: david_gaithersburg: YixilTesiphon: DerAppie: Elegy: No fractional reserve banking? Good luck getting credit....

Live within your means and you won't need credit.

Right, but how do you start a business without credit?

Investors. They do this thing called investing.

Sure, but fractional reserve banking makes these things a lot easier.


Sigh....Let me try this again. Banks do not lend money for you to open a business. Since your investors are in essence co-signors the banks basically lend money to people with investors/backers/co-signors to open a business. Banks are not in the business of gambling that your pretzel stand is the greatest thing since the invention of bread.
 
2012-10-22 01:44:07 PM  

madgonad: YixilTesiphon: Or the government could have let them go bankrupt.

I actually favored that. Do some of those quick - five day bankruptcies, like they did with GM. Essentially sell off the valuable parts to stable companies, pay the immediate debts, kill the shares, and give the bondholders a trim. The functional parts of the business would change ownership, the equitized executives would get nothing, and bonuses would all get cancelled.

The problem was at the time the Dow was going under 7,000 and there weren't many companies capable of buying. See, most business acquisitions are managed and/or financed by banks. In this case the BANKS were the problem and only a government had the resources to come in and take care of business. We did it through TARP instead of through bankruptcies - and it worked. People keep forgetting how scary it was getting...


OK, but why did any company need to buy it? The banks clearly didn't learn the lesson, which they would have had they been allowed to self-destruct.

GM was ridiculous too. It had actual hard assets that people would have been interested in acquiring had it gone under, but instead the thing was kept alive.

Risks need to be real for pricing to work.
 
2012-10-22 01:44:21 PM  
Who would ever vote themselves to be less powerful?

Who would do that?

"Oh yes I agree. let me have less power" because $$ = power
pffft.
Nice bit of writing but honestly about as un-likely a scheme as I've ever read about.
 
2012-10-22 01:45:11 PM  

david_gaithersburg: Banks do not lend money for you to open a business.


So I'm imagining the bank loan that my brother-in-law has for his practice?
 
2012-10-22 01:45:26 PM  

david_gaithersburg: The ignorance from the left on display here is non-astonishing.


Any time somebody gets all squinty and eye roll-y and "oh, my dear boy, harrumph"y about the minutiae of on the folds in the elephant's skin, they usually have a vested interest in keeping people from noticing the f*cking huge elephant wearing it. The problem *is* fractional reserve banking, non existent money and it being printed like confetti to leverage actual wealth into an ever growing pool that only a few people are allowed to swim in. Amschel Rothschild stated things quite succinctly, years ago and the business plan hasn't shifted since.
 
2012-10-22 01:48:06 PM  

RanDomino: d23
Ron Paul libertarians = Corporate Anarchists.

An oxymoron. The internal structure of any corporation is fascism.


And this is why you're highlighted in green.
 
2012-10-22 01:48:16 PM  

bunner: david_gaithersburg: The ignorance from the left on display here is non-astonishing.

Any time somebody gets all squinty and eye roll-y and "oh, my dear boy, harrumph"y about the minutiae of on the folds in the elephant's skin, they usually have a vested interest in keeping people from noticing the f*cking huge elephant wearing it. The problem *is* fractional reserve banking, non existent money and it being printed like confetti to leverage actual wealth into an ever growing pool that only a few people are allowed to swim in. Amschel Rothschild stated things quite succinctly, years ago and the business plan hasn't shifted since.


Has poverty increased or decreased since the advent of fractional reserve banking?
 
2012-10-22 01:48:47 PM  
It makes sense to me.

Loan inflation (and hell, usury in general) allow people to speculate and influence the fortunes of others.

Dial it back.
 
2012-10-22 01:48:59 PM  
Typical liberals not understanding how the economy works. If you have a debt, that is someone else's asset. If you erase that debt with a stroke of a pen you erase the asset as well.

Also, dumbmitter, libertarians vote are for Gary Johnson, not Ron Paul.
 
2012-10-22 01:49:15 PM  
Most people lean libertarian on at least a few issues when you ask them. Most people don't self identify as libertarians. Fine.

Most people appreciate Ron Paul for his honesty and consistency, which is rare for a politician. Most people don't live in Ron Paul's district and can EABOD if they don't like it. He's not some bogeyman.
 
2012-10-22 01:49:30 PM  

DerAppie: YixilTesiphon: DerAppie: Elegy: No fractional reserve banking? Good luck getting credit....

Live within your means and you won't need credit.

Right, but how do you start a business without credit?

Put up a decent bussiness plan and look for someone (corporations are people) who thinks that your plan has decent risk:reward ratio. In exchange for money (let us call that "interest" because it is what makes it "interesting" to invest) from your profits they will lend you money.


Interesting.Investors should extend some kind of money or "credit" to the business, correct?
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2012-10-22 01:50:17 PM  

RanDomino: d23
Ron Paul libertarians = Corporate Anarchists.

An oxymoron. The internal structure of any corporation is fascism.


This isn't a contradiction of my point. The current Republican "libertarians" only really care that their precious corporations don't have to abide by any rules and that's it. They are as far from classic libertarianism as you can get. They couldn't care less about the liberty of the individual.
 
2012-10-22 01:50:35 PM  
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-10-22 01:51:05 PM  
What a corporate boardroom plaque might look like.

i1.cpcache.com
 
2012-10-22 01:51:05 PM  

lordaction: Also, dumbmitter, libertarians vote are for Gary Johnson, not Ron Paul.


So no true Scotsman, oops I mean libertarian, votes for Ron Paul.

Got it.
 
2012-10-22 01:52:18 PM  

skullkrusher: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Eliminating fractional reserve banking. Good thing there aren't legitimate, healthy uses for debt that most people/organizations need to function. What's not to love about requiring home buyers to either pay for it all in cash or wait X number of years for the system to expand enough so they can get a loan?

You can eliminate fractional reserve banking and still have bank make home loans. Basically, a 100% reserve requirement only requires banks to maintain 100% of demand deposits on hand. It does not impact things such as CDs, bonds and other time deposits.

If I am a bank and you came to me with $500 and I promised to give you $550 a year from now, I can lend that $500 out without violating the 100% reserve requirement. However, if you came to me with $500 which you could demand at any time, I would be in violation if I were to lend out that money. Basically scenario A doesn't "create" money the way FRB does. The amount of $ in the system remains the same without any additions from the gov.

It would certainly reduce the easy access to credit but it does not eliminate credit.


The problem with the elimination of fractional reserves is that a bank can only expand based on its profits. In the example you provided, if that $500 to $550 transaction was the only transaction in the year, the bank could only lend that extra fifty dollars in year two. Over the course of several centuries, then yes, it could add up to significant results, but the global economy is driven by access to credit. Industry and agriculture would be immediately devastated if everything had to be paid for in cash. Even Apple, with its billions of cash in reserve, would seriously be struggling if it had to pay for all development with cash on hand.

The system is set up to enable liquidity and transition. Preventing access to debt leads to concentrated and established power tiers that lock everyone else in to where they are. I'm in the bottom quintile for income right now, I know I can get above that in my lifetime (I'm not delusional to think I'll be a 1%er, so I'll cut that troll off at the knees). Buying a house, a car, and funding education are all great examples of WHY some debt is healthy, and all of those would be massively impacted.

Austrian theory only works when all parties start off equal and all labor is fungible.

/Posts like that are why I don't block you
//We may disagree on a lot of issues, but I know you're not a tard
 
2012-10-22 01:53:29 PM  

bunner: RanDomino: d23
Ron Paul libertarians = Corporate Anarchists.

An oxymoron. The internal structure of any corporation is fascism.

And this is why you're highlighted in green.


for lulz?
 
2012-10-22 01:54:09 PM  

Tat'dGreaser: Arkanaut: Is anyone else annoyed at the British use of "pc" instead of the % sign?

YES


Eh, I figured it out in a few seconds.
 
2012-10-22 01:54:25 PM  

slayer199: Kazan: slayer199: 1. Ron Paul is not a libertarian, is not widely supported by libertarians.

the first part of that statement is true, the second part is pants-on-fire bullshiat. every self described libertarian i know is a paul fan

slayer199: 2. Libertarianism is not the same as Randianism.

in theory, no. in practice in the United States? almost every self-described Libertarian (note the Capital L) is a randite.

Uh, no. Ron Paul is supported by libertarian-leaning Republicans, not Libertarians. I don't know any Libertarians that support Ron Paul. He's a Republican with some libertarian-leaning ideas....

GAT_00: slayer199: Ron Paul is not a libertarian, is not widely supported by libertarians.

[i575.photobucket.com image 411x110]

Coming from a guy that thinks Reason is a Republican-backed magazine and is pro-police...I'll sleep well at night knowing you still have no understanding of the LP or libertarianism.


No, we understand the LP just fine: nuts, who used to be Republicans but are now embarrassed to admit it. But mostly nuts.
 
2012-10-22 01:55:06 PM  

slayer199: Since subby apparently thinks that anyone that disagrees with larger government and against the fed is either a Ron Paul fan or an Randian, allow me to clarify.

1. Ron Paul is not a libertarian, is not widely supported by libertarians.
2. Libertarianism is not the same as Randianism.

Back to the article. HELL NO. The IMF is farking insane. The solution to irresponsible deficit spending is to take over the private money supply? Like we're supposed to trust the government with money?

Riiiggggghhhhtttt.


We already do. U.S. currency is backed by the "full faith and credit of the United States." We, through the government, already take all of the rish when it comes to economic fluctuations. What we, also throught the government, do not have is control of the money supply. That is in the control of a bunch of private entities who have been gaming the system to their advantage for decades.

Also, as stated in the disclaimer, this is NOT the viewpoint and policy of the IMF. They and the World Bank are all about privatizing state-run entities (like utilities). This is going in the opposite direction: Government comtrol of a currently privately-held entity.
 
2012-10-22 01:55:22 PM  

YixilTesiphon: bunner: david_gaithersburg: The ignorance from the left on display here is non-astonishing.

Any time somebody gets all squinty and eye roll-y and "oh, my dear boy, harrumph"y about the minutiae of on the folds in the elephant's skin, they usually have a vested interest in keeping people from noticing the f*cking huge elephant wearing it. The problem *is* fractional reserve banking, non existent money and it being printed like confetti to leverage actual wealth into an ever growing pool that only a few people are allowed to swim in. Amschel Rothschild stated things quite succinctly, years ago and the business plan hasn't shifted since.

Has poverty increased or decreased since the advent of fractional reserve banking?


Heck no! We're farting through silk! As long ans everybody shuts the hell up, eats their gruel and doesn't try to actually call in any of that magically wealth building debt. Did you know that endless growth defies the laws of physics? So far, all this malarkey farming with what money is and isn't has gotten us here. And here ain't so hot. I got a funny feeling that an economy based on mass delusion isn't as workable as it seems.
 
2012-10-22 01:55:43 PM  

YixilTesiphon: iq_in_binary: CruJones: iq_in_binary: Kazan: slayer199: 1. Ron Paul is not a libertarian, is not widely supported by libertarians.

the first part of that statement is true, the second part is pants-on-fire bullshiat. every self described libertarian i know is a paul fan

slayer199: 2. Libertarianism is not the same as Randianism.

in theory, no. in practice in the United States? almost every self-described Libertarian (note the Capital L) is a randite.

If they are self described libertarians that support Ron Paul, they are Republicans. Find an actual libertarian and you'll find that they usually think he is a racist steeplechaser with Alzheimer's.

I'm an actual libertarian and not a Paul fan. I do like some of his ideas, but many are completely batshiat crazy. But I was actually a Philosophy major, and understand what libertarianism is, not just someone who thinks it means "less gubmint".

/actually has a real job with that degree
//basically works out to social liberal, fiscal conservative

So basically, you're intelligent enough to know that libertarianism and socialism are not mutually exclusive.

How are you defining socialism here? I am guessing that CruJones believes that private property is a good thing.


I also understand the differences between ideals and reality. Sometimes spending a dollar here saves five later. But all it really means is I don't care who you fark, marry, or what you ingest into your body. It's none of my business, and it's not the government's either.
 
2012-10-22 01:56:27 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: skullkrusher: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Eliminating fractional reserve banking. Good thing there aren't legitimate, healthy uses for debt that most people/organizations need to function. What's not to love about requiring home buyers to either pay for it all in cash or wait X number of years for the system to expand enough so they can get a loan?

You can eliminate fractional reserve banking and still have bank make home loans. Basically, a 100% reserve requirement only requires banks to maintain 100% of demand deposits on hand. It does not impact things such as CDs, bonds and other time deposits.

If I am a bank and you came to me with $500 and I promised to give you $550 a year from now, I can lend that $500 out without violating the 100% reserve requirement. However, if you came to me with $500 which you could demand at any time, I would be in violation if I were to lend out that money. Basically scenario A doesn't "create" money the way FRB does. The amount of $ in the system remains the same without any additions from the gov.

It would certainly reduce the easy access to credit but it does not eliminate credit.

The problem with the elimination of fractional reserves is that a bank can only expand based on its profits. In the example you provided, if that $500 to $550 transaction was the only transaction in the year, the bank could only lend that extra fifty dollars in year two. Over the course of several centuries, then yes, it could add up to significant results, but the global economy is driven by access to credit. Industry and agriculture would be immediately devastated if everything had to be paid for in cash. Even Apple, with its billions of cash in reserve, would seriously be struggling if it had to pay for all development with cash on hand.

The system is set up to enable liquidity and transition. Preventing access to debt leads to concentrated and established power tiers that lock everyone else in to where they are. I'm in the bottom quintile for inc ...


an elimination of FRB would be a dramatic change to current global credit markets. However, that elimination is also necessary to take the business of "creating" money out of the hands of banks as TFA suggests. I was just pointing out that it doesn't mean the end of credit.
 
2012-10-22 01:56:37 PM  

fireclown: Actually, that's kind of one of the suggestions of the Austrian School 'O Economics. If you want to spin up your libertarian friends, tell 'em you are in favor of "Fiat Currency"/


I drove a Fiat Currency for a couple of years. Thing went bust all the time

hat4uk.files.wordpress.com
Plus, it wasn't a convertible.
 
2012-10-22 01:57:09 PM  
Sometimes I try to play nice with the internet and leave my adblock off, but then shiat like this convinces me that all browsers should come with ABP pre-installed just out spite.
 
2012-10-22 01:57:49 PM  

david_gaithersburg: Slaves2Darkness: nmemkha: Does anyone know how we got into this mess?

Umm...what makes you think this is a mess? US deficit funding has created the greatest amount of wealth spread to the largest amount of people in the history of the world. It has funded low tax, large military, and world domination that Caesar could only dream about. Deficit spending defeated the last of the great enemies and proved once and for all that a Republic is the best government ever. It has funded decadence, sloth, corruption that would make Caligula drool.

In short US deficit spending and the debt is the greatest thing we the people could have ever done.

The only problem we have now is convincing the retarded right that taxes must increased to reduce the deficit, so the party can continue. The retarded right are the douche bags who never pony up a couple of bucks for the beer run, so the party can continue.

But you, the retarded left, just said that deficit spending is a good thing. Make up your mind child.


Child? Who is the child here, I mean you apparently can't hold two thoughts in your head at the same time, so I'll explain it.

We do both, deficit spend and reduce the deficit through increased taxes. Yes, those ideas seem to be in opposition, but one reduces the impact of the other.

Personally I feel we should not be reducing the deficit at this time, but expanding it greatly. Currently interest rates on new debt are at the lowest they have been, and when combined with the effects of inflation are at negative rates. (Yes the US can borrow free money right now.)

We could do two things with this to help the economy and relief the debt. The first of course is to stimulate the economy through a jobs bill, creating an increase in both demand and GDP growth. Sadly the retarded Republicans have blocked any and all efforts in this direction and made it toxic for Speaker of the House Boehner to even try to reach a deal on this issue, while the farking Senate Democrats are being cowards on this issue.

The second is to retire higher interest rate debt. I know it is really confusing to people who can't who can't hold two thoughts in their head and don't understand economics at all, but essentially the US borrows money to pay off debt. The trick here is that the money borrowed is at a lower interest rate, and currently a negative interest rate, then the debt being paid off. It reduces the overall debt load and can reduce the deficit by reducing the interest payment necessary to service the debt.
 
2012-10-22 01:57:51 PM  
RON PAUL saved himself. And that's the only person--except maybe his son--he was interested in saving.

Unless you believe multi-celled fetuses are persons. No strike that. Unless you believe the instantaneous product of a sperm and ovum uniting is a person. Then of course RON PAUL is willing to save millions of persons. By telling women they have no control over their reproductive system.

Does RON PAUL care that raising an unwanted child, forced by the government to be carried to term, costs $300,000 to raise? NOT IN THE LEAST. His morality ends at the north end of the vagina. In the land of the totalitarian baby-factory.
 
2012-10-22 01:58:31 PM  
Money, you see, the thing about money, money is IOUs. And that's all it *ever* was designed to be. You can only pass the buck and print IOUs against nothing until either the buck stops or you have to admit you're dealing with really snazzy toilet paper.
 
2012-10-22 01:58:46 PM  

bunner: YixilTesiphon: bunner: david_gaithersburg: The ignorance from the left on display here is non-astonishing.

Any time somebody gets all squinty and eye roll-y and "oh, my dear boy, harrumph"y about the minutiae of on the folds in the elephant's skin, they usually have a vested interest in keeping people from noticing the f*cking huge elephant wearing it. The problem *is* fractional reserve banking, non existent money and it being printed like confetti to leverage actual wealth into an ever growing pool that only a few people are allowed to swim in. Amschel Rothschild stated things quite succinctly, years ago and the business plan hasn't shifted since.

Has poverty increased or decreased since the advent of fractional reserve banking?

Heck no! We're farting through silk! As long ans everybody shuts the hell up, eats their gruel and doesn't try to actually call in any of that magically wealth building debt. Did you know that endless growth defies the laws of physics? So far, all this malarkey farming with what money is and isn't has gotten us here. And here ain't so hot. I got a funny feeling that an economy based on mass delusion isn't as workable as it seems.


"Incoherent gibberish" wasn't an option; your options were "increased" or "decreased".
 
2012-10-22 01:58:52 PM  

d23: RanDomino: d23
Ron Paul libertarians = Corporate Anarchists.

An oxymoron. The internal structure of any corporation is fascism.

This isn't a contradiction of my point. The current Republican "libertarians" only really care that their precious corporations don't have to abide by any rules and that's it. They are as far from classic libertarianism as you can get. They couldn't care less about the liberty of the individual.


Successful troll will be successful.
 
2012-10-22 01:59:38 PM  

ghare: No, we understand the LP just fine: nuts, who used to be Republicans but are now embarrassed to admit it. But mostly nuts.


nope...keep telling yourself that if it helps you to sleep.

we are against both governmental and corporate tyranny with the knowledge and understanding that both organisations are needed at some minimum level for a society to function.
 
2012-10-22 02:00:02 PM  

lordaction: Typical liberals not understanding how the economy works. If you have a debt, that is someone else's asset. If you erase that debt with a stroke of a pen you erase the asset as well.

Also, dumbmitter, libertarians vote are for Gary Johnson, not Ron Paul.


That's kind of the point.
 
2012-10-22 02:00:34 PM  

probesport: IMF? Unbelievable.


OH!
 
2012-10-22 02:01:11 PM  
The people who made this movie have been promulgating this plan for decades.
 
2012-10-22 02:01:49 PM  

genepool lifeboat: probesport: IMF? Unbelievable.

OH!


WTF?
 
2012-10-22 02:01:55 PM  

mr lawson: ghare: No, we understand the LP just fine: nuts, who used to be Republicans but are now embarrassed to admit it. But mostly nuts.

nope...keep telling yourself that if it helps you to sleep.

we are against both governmental and corporate tyranny with the knowledge and understanding that both organisations are needed at some minimum level for a society to function.


But you characterize anything you thing is a step too far as "tyranny," so it makes you hard to negotiate with.
 
2012-10-22 02:02:00 PM  

YixilTesiphon: "Incoherent gibberish" wasn't an option; your options were "increased" or "decreased".


So not only are you a condescending prat, but you think I work for you? Oh, Prunella. You are a caution. : )
 
2012-10-22 02:02:24 PM  

Old Smokie: Most people lean libertarian on at least a few issues when you ask them. Most people don't self identify as libertarians. Fine.

Most people appreciate Ron Paul for his honesty and consistency, which is rare for a politician. Most people don't live in Ron Paul's district and can EABOD if they don't like it. He's not some bogeyman.


The problem is that Ron Paul is actually dishonest and stupid, though I will give him credit for consistency. He either doesn't understand economics, refuses to understand economics, or is lying to people about economics.

And I'm a supply-side classical economist.
 
2012-10-22 02:02:35 PM  
Actually, the headline is in total reverse.

Right now, If Comrade Obamavich needs $1 trillion, he goes to the fed and borrows it, say at 6%.

That gives him his trillion, but he owes $60 billion in interest; for 5 minutes' paperwork, the fed profits $60 billion.

If the Treasury creates the mnoney, therre is no debt, but if they create too much it will cause inflation and we would vote them out. I would gladly pay 6--12% of my income to get rid of the bastards right now.

Read a book called "Creature From Jekyll Island" by D. Edward Griffin, it will open your eyes.
 
2012-10-22 02:03:01 PM  
P.S. Your posture of authority™ sucks fat hippo ass. I thought you should know.
 
2012-10-22 02:03:57 PM  

LasersHurt: But you characterize anything you thing is a step too far as "tyranny," so it makes you hard to negotiate with.


life is hard
 
2012-10-22 02:07:05 PM  

DerAppie: Elegy: No fractional reserve banking? Good luck getting credit....

Live within your means and you won't need credit.


Oh really? You paid cash up front for your home? For your last car that you bought? For that next round of capital investment in your small business?

Fractional reserve banking makes credit possible, and we're not talking about "revolving door" credit like credit cards, we're talking about the sort of credit that 99% of Americans use for big ticket items.

How? You deposit 100 dollars in the bank. If, by law, I (the bank) need 10% of deposits on hand, I turn around and lend out the other 90 dollars to someone needing a mortgage at interest. Or a car. Or someone looking to expand their business. The interest on that loan then pays the interest that you accrue on your deposited savings, with some left over as a profit for the bank.

Now eliminate the fractional reserve requirements, and change the law so that I (the bank) now have to have 100% of deposits on hand. Surprise! Now no one can get credit, because I have no money to lend, instead I have to have all sit idling in my vault, by law. Good luck buying that house.

Simple math, how does it work?
 
2012-10-22 02:07:07 PM  

Ricardo Klement: And I'm a supply-side classical economist.


There is no such thing as "supply-side" or "demand-side" economics. Only Capital-side economics.
 
2012-10-22 02:07:42 PM  
lh6.googleusercontent.com
 
2012-10-22 02:08:44 PM  

mr lawson: Ricardo Klement: And I'm a supply-side classical economist.

There is no such thing as "supply-side" or "demand-side" economics. Only Capital-side economics.


The only important kind of capitalism is "INSIDE" capitalism.

/insider, that is
 
2012-10-22 02:08:50 PM  
It's simple: One country gets all our debt. They buy it for pennies on the dollars so that they're holding all the liability. Then we nuke that country. Doesn't have to be a big country. Preferably an island nation that can take a nukking without hurting anyone downrange.

With them gone, so goes our debt. We'll all be real careful and not borrow anymore money than we actually need. But since we're out of debt, why not celebrate with some tax cuts and trip to Aruba. Put it on the card. They have a zero balance. We'll pay it off next month.
 
2012-10-22 02:08:53 PM  
Just as an aside people, remember that we have to pay interest on the debt, and there will be a point where it'll swallow up the bulk of taxes if we keep going this way.
 
2012-10-22 02:09:41 PM  

Elegy: You paid cash up front for ... your last car that you bought?


Yes. Is it so hard to save money?
 
2012-10-22 02:09:57 PM  
Anyone else point out that subby is a tard?
 
2012-10-22 02:10:16 PM  
If you need a slew of spectators with doctorates spewing endless volumes and cautions as to how something as relatively simple as commerce works, you're probably already well past the point of delusional as to what commerce and or value is, or is not. If this move makes all the economists redundant, it's already a useful idea.
 
2012-10-22 02:11:02 PM  

PsiChick: Eh, I figured it out in a few seconds.


Well so did I but that doesn't mean they can just do what they want and throw extra "u's" anywhere they want
 
2012-10-22 02:11:37 PM  

ghare: No, we understand the LP just fine: nuts, who used to be Republicans but are now embarrassed to admit it. But mostly nuts.


mr lawson: man...don't even try. The left will never understand and the right just thinks we are godless heathens.


Good advice.
 
2012-10-22 02:11:53 PM  

Ricardo Klement: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRGGGHHHHH!
*sploosh*

Now that my head exploded, fractional reserve banking is not some magical power to conjure forth money. It is a mathematical side-effect of lending out money and accepting deposits. If I lend Bob $20, and he buys a bottle of cheap whiskey from Jack, who then asks me to hang on to the cash for him because he doesn't have pockets, and then I lend that $20 to Bill, I just created money. And I am not a bank, and I am not regulated by the feds.


No you didn't! You just gave Bill the money Jack told you to hang on to even though it wasn't yours to give. You're not a money creator, you're a jerk who spends other people's money! Go get Jack's money back before he hears about what you did and deposits his fist into your face.
 
2012-10-22 02:12:27 PM  

Elegy: DerAppie: Elegy: No fractional reserve banking? Good luck getting credit....

Live within your means and you won't need credit.

Oh really? You paid cash up front for your home? For your last car that you bought? For that next round of capital investment in your small business?

Fractional reserve banking makes credit possible, and we're not talking about "revolving door" credit like credit cards, we're talking about the sort of credit that 99% of Americans use for big ticket items.

How? You deposit 100 dollars in the bank. If, by law, I (the bank) need 10% of deposits on hand, I turn around and lend out the other 90 dollars to someone needing a mortgage at interest. Or a car. Or someone looking to expand their business. The interest on that loan then pays the interest that you accrue on your deposited savings, with some left over as a profit for the bank.

Now eliminate the fractional reserve requirements, and change the law so that I (the bank) now have to have 100% of deposits on hand. Surprise! Now no one can get credit, because I have no money to lend, instead I have to have all sit idling in my vault, by law. Good luck buying that house.

Simple math, how does it work?


What makes you think any of that couldn't happen with direct federal control of the monetary supply? You'd get your mortgage from the Federal revenue cabinet (or whatever they decided to call it), and pay them directly. Interest rates would be lower, as there is no privately-owned bank that needs to profit.
 
2012-10-22 02:15:26 PM  

jaytkay: DerAppie: YixilTesiphon: DerAppie: Elegy: No fractional reserve banking? Good luck getting credit....

Live within your means and you won't need credit.

Right, but how do you start a business without credit?

Put up a decent bussiness plan and look for someone (corporations are people) who thinks that your plan has decent risk:reward ratio. In exchange for money (let us call that "interest" because it is what makes it "interesting" to invest) from your profits they will lend you money.

Interesting.Investors should extend some kind of money or "credit" to the business, correct?


I'm not the one claiming it would be impossible to get credit, just that it isn't necessary for day to day living. Nor did I make the claim that getting credit wouldn't be more difficult in case you were wondering.
 
2012-10-22 02:16:06 PM  

slayer199: ghare: No, we understand the LP just fine: nuts, who used to be Republicans but are now embarrassed to admit it. But mostly nuts.

mr lawson: man...don't even try. The left will never understand and the right just thinks we are godless heathens.

Good advice.


Yeah, never argue with an idiot. Ghare certainly is one, and he is always concerned about Mexicans as well.
 
2012-10-22 02:16:28 PM  

SageC: No you didn't! You just gave Bill the money Jack told you to hang on to even though it wasn't yours to give. You're not a money creator, you're a jerk who spends other people's money! Go get Jack's money back before he hears about what you did and deposits his fist into your face.


please say you are joking..lol
/in his example, he stated he was a bank
//this is how banks work
///it is called the money multiplier effect
////actually the MME can work without fractional reserves, but the effect is greatly lessen.
 
2012-10-22 02:16:40 PM  

Elegy: No fractional reserve banking? Good luck getting credit....


This.

Requiring banks to back all deposits with state cash will skyrocket fees and strangle the personal credit market resulting in deflation.

Yes, you get lending under control, but at what cost? The banks will not go down quietly.
 
2012-10-22 02:17:00 PM  

jaytkay: lordaction: Also, dumbmitter, libertarians vote are for Gary Johnson, not Ron Paul.

So no true Scotsman, oops I mean libertarian, votes for Ron Paul.

Got it.


Why would a libertarian vote for a non-libertarian? I would think they would vote for the Libertarian on the ballot.
 
2012-10-22 02:17:25 PM  

vartian: Slaxl: Or am I too cynical?

Take the money out of the hands of people that care only about money. That's progress; the rest we can figure out.


Bullshiat. I'd rather have the money in the hands of men without qualm regarding how the money is used so long as they believe they can get a cut, than in the hands of those dedicated to bringing personal power to themselves at all costs.

The former can be controlled by making publicly good ventures more profitable than publicly disadvantageous ones. The latter have little enough to control them by already.

Better our rich men contend with our powerful men. Setting things at odds is the foundation of American governance.
 
2012-10-22 02:17:55 PM  

mizchief: I don't see where you get that from. Anti-democrat for sure and for good reason since they do the things the LP hates and doesn't come though on the promises of social liberty either. Reason has no support for a police-state or the endless foreign wars and military presence which along with the religious aspect is was sets LP apart from the GOP.


That was GAT's POV regarding Reason.com, not mine.
 
2012-10-22 02:18:01 PM  

lordaction: jaytkay: lordaction: Also, dumbmitter, libertarians vote are for Gary Johnson, not Ron Paul.

So no true Scotsman, oops I mean libertarian, votes for Ron Paul.

Got it.

Why would a libertarian vote for a non-libertarian? I would think they would vote for the Libertarian on the ballot.


unless that "Libertarian"'s name is "Bob Barr"
 
2012-10-22 02:20:19 PM  

skullkrusher: unless that "Libertarian"'s name is "Bob Barr"


lutz..i still voted for him.
he was an idiot...but OUR idiot.
and still better than the other two
 
2012-10-22 02:21:22 PM  

LOTN: Better our rich men contend with our powerful men.


The point of money isn't just liquidity, it's power. This is why ostensibly wise and learned men spend tens upon tens of millions of dollars to get a public service job that pays 400,000.00 a year.
 
2012-10-22 02:21:54 PM  

mr lawson: skullkrusher: unless that "Libertarian"'s name is "Bob Barr"

lutz..i still voted for him.
he was an idiot...but OUR idiot.
and still better than the other two


I neglected my civic duties and didn't vote at all
 
2012-10-22 02:23:10 PM  

jaytkay: DerAppie: YixilTesiphon: DerAppie: Elegy: No fractional reserve banking? Good luck getting credit....

Live within your means and you won't need credit.

Right, but how do you start a business without credit?

Put up a decent bussiness plan and look for someone (corporations are people) who thinks that your plan has decent risk:reward ratio. In exchange for money (let us call that "interest" because it is what makes it "interesting" to invest) from your profits they will lend you money.

Interesting.Investors should extend some kind of money or "credit" to the business, correct?




Sounds like your arguing with a person who never needed a short term loan to make payroll.... or should you just ask your investors for that?
 
2012-10-22 02:24:04 PM  
Read up on Pennsylvania Scrip. 

Or, sorry, study it out.
 
2012-10-22 02:24:05 PM  

skullkrusher: I neglected my civic duties and didn't vote at all


can't really blame ya.
I rolled my eyes pulling the lever
/Libertarian party: Hearding cats is easier
 
2012-10-22 02:24:50 PM  

mizchief: The fact that i had a 100% average from my public high school's economics class without knowing how money was created until i researched on my own later in college, is a pretty good indicator of why this system is working.


Yeah, but you don't have any skin in the game until you go in hock to your philtrum for a degree. You're not supposed to see the emperor's naked ass until you have an interest in pretending he is clothed in splendor.
 
2012-10-22 02:24:57 PM  

Tat'dGreaser: PsiChick: Eh, I figured it out in a few seconds.

Well so did I but that doesn't mean they can just do what they want and throw extra "u's" anywhere they want


...Well, it's their variant of English, not ours...so they kinda can.
 
2012-10-22 02:26:22 PM  

lordaction: jaytkay: lordaction: Also, dumbmitter, libertarians vote are for Gary Johnson, not Ron Paul.

So no true Scotsman, oops I mean libertarian, votes for Ron Paul.

Got it.

Why would a libertarian vote for a non-libertarian? I would think they would vote for the Libertarian on the ballot.


One should never support a candidate solely by the party they belong to.
 
2012-10-22 02:26:35 PM  

mr lawson: skullkrusher: I neglected my civic duties and didn't vote at all

can't really blame ya.
I rolled my eyes pulling the lever
/Libertarian party: Hearding cats is easier


I am far less ideological than the LP and don't agree with much of what they say so it's not a natural go-to for me. I will be voting for GJ next month, however.
 
2012-10-22 02:27:39 PM  

Amos Quito: Sounds like a great idea... but


[2.bp.blogspot.com image 578x522]


Coming from the IMF???


I know, right? This is the New World Order that was prophesied years ago. This is Obama's black helicopters and white tanks rolling through American cities to implement universal communism the day after he gets re-elected. This is the end of the world as we know it, friends, and the beginning of the Tribulation.

Or so Mitt's big money backers will have us believe, soon enough. Why have they not seized on this as part of their anti-Obama ad campaigns?
 
2012-10-22 02:29:28 PM  
I'm currently reading Atlas Shrugged, so I'm getting a kick out of these comments.
 
2012-10-22 02:30:06 PM  

misanthropologist: Or so Mitt's big money backers will have us believe, soon enough. Why have they not seized on this as part of their anti-Obama ad campaigns?


Because Romney is center-right at most and not a fire breathing loon?
 
2012-10-22 02:31:05 PM  

mizchief: Yes, but you leave out the fun part. The builder who receives the cash from the borrower then turns around and deposits that money into the same bank which in turns loans it out again at 10 times it's value. Since we have a global reserve system, this all funnels back into the same system where the actual wealth (gold for ex) was long extracted by the bankers only leaving the IOU's behind.

Then as the system collapses, they bankers turn around and take back the house, which they then sell off to someone whom they just wrote another loan too. This is where the boom-bust cycle comes from, and as any 5th grader can see only the bankers will ever own real wealth.


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-nSAlEGPemug/TzgRphGqP-I/AAAAAAAABhQ/Ip3vh0c Y gHs/s1600/daunte-touchdown.jpg
 
2012-10-22 02:31:41 PM  

YixilTesiphon: david_gaithersburg: Banks do not lend money for you to open a business.

So I'm imagining the bank loan that my brother-in-law has for his practice?


Sure, send me his financials for the 24 months prior to the loan and I'll explain it for you.

//btw - my dad is also a TV repairman. (too obscure?)
 
2012-10-22 02:31:51 PM  

slayer199: Kazan: almost every farking Libertarian i have ever met is just a randite republican embarassed to call themselves republican.

there are almost not "little l" libertarians in the united states. which you're trying to claim to be. and quite frankly i don't buy what you're selling based on your posting history.

Apparently you suffer from selective memory or you have me confused with someone else.. I've voted Libertarian since '92. I was not a fan of Bush (I was very critical of Bush). I'm not a fan of Ron Paul. I've supported gay marriage, legalization of marijuana (and ending the War on Drugs in general), legalization of prostitution, shrinking of the military, cutting off of foreign aid (other than for natural disasters), open trade, open immigration, balanced budget, dramatically reducing the size and scope of the government, and pretty much every small-l libertarian ideal. Basically individual liberty with personal responsibility and smaller government.

What I find amusing is that lefties have such a hard time understanding libertarianism...other than "ZOMG, WANTING LESS GOVERNMENT IS BAD". I'll boil down libertarian philosophy down for you in a couple short lines.

Government exists to protect and defend individual liberty, enforce contracts, and provide physical infrastructure. That does not mean it's government's responsibility to protect me from myself or my poor life choices.


I might have a one-up on you with that. I'm in favor of completely dropping the term "marriage" from the US law, and replace it with "civil unions." Everyone can have a civil union, and the rights extend to the partner as it would have with marriage. I also believe in dropping everything not included in the constitution (and its amendments), and bring those back to local and state governments. That even means the USPS would go back to being a government agency, but Social Security, Medicare, SSI, Medicaid? Let the local and state handle it, or at best privatize it and make it optional (I'm already arranging my retirement to not include Social Security).

I too say end this war on drugs, this also includes: cigarettes, alcohol, and other forms of -legal- drugs, and also allow states to have laws and controls without stepping on their heels (Fed law vs CA law is a good example). I have no issues with people smoking at a little post 50 feet from the grocery store in sub-zero temperatures no more than I have in the store in a secured, ventilated, and climate-controlled room. At least in the climate-controlled room, they won't catch the exposure effects from standing in the elements.

Everything else is good as well, but I also think while we limit the scope of our military, we need to keep numbers up, and teach the brats life lessons. Conscription needs to make a comeback (and not just for the military mind you). Tie things to taking a year or 2 of your life in service to the local/state/federal government. Even working in the US Dept of the Post Office would teach.
 
2012-10-22 02:31:59 PM  
oops

mizchief: Yes, but you leave out the fun part. The builder who receives the cash from the borrower then turns around and deposits that money into the same bank which in turns loans it out again at 10 times it's value. Since we have a global reserve system, this all funnels back into the same system where the actual wealth (gold for ex) was long extracted by the bankers only leaving the IOU's behind.

Then as the system collapses, they bankers turn around and take back the house, which they then sell off to someone whom they just wrote another loan too. This is where the boom-bust cycle comes from, and as any 5th grader can see only the bankers will ever own real wealth.



Then as the system collapses, they bankers turn around and take back the house, which they then sell off to someone whom they just wrote another loan too. This is where the boom-bust cycle comes from, and as any 5th grader can see only the bankers will ever own real wealth.

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-10-22 02:36:17 PM  

CruJones: lordaction: jaytkay: lordaction: Also, dumbmitter, libertarians vote are for Gary Johnson, not Ron Paul.

So no true Scotsman, oops I mean libertarian, votes for Ron Paul.

Got it.

Why would a libertarian vote for a non-libertarian? I would think they would vote for the Libertarian on the ballot.

One should never support a candidate solely by the party they belong to.


That is exactly right, however the Democrats and Republicans have zero to offer to a libertarian and the Green Party is straight up communist.
 
2012-10-22 02:36:32 PM  

boogie_down: jaytkay: DerAppie: YixilTesiphon: DerAppie: Elegy: No fractional reserve banking? Good luck getting credit....

Live within your means and you won't need credit.

Right, but how do you start a business without credit?

Put up a decent bussiness plan and look for someone (corporations are people) who thinks that your plan has decent risk:reward ratio. In exchange for money (let us call that "interest" because it is what makes it "interesting" to invest) from your profits they will lend you money.

Interesting.Investors should extend some kind of money or "credit" to the business, correct?



Sounds like your arguing with a person who never needed a short term loan to make payroll.... or should you just ask your investors for that?


Don't you have friends or family? I have made loans to and gotten loans from family members when times asked for it. With as added benefit that they are interest free. You know why I can borrow from family? Because I very rately do, never needed more than €50 and return the favour. No bank needed.

Besides, banks earn money. If they didn't no one would use them because they wouldn't get interest. The money a bank earns can be used in any way the bank wants. I'm not advocating 100% coverage at all times, I just want banks to have a balanced budget. Every cent they owe someone should be covered by either money the bank possessed or money people owe the bank (or collateral). None of this "Don't worry everything will work out as long as the government keeps sending us money" crap. We've just seen that there is reason to worry because in virtually risk free environments people take stupid risks.
 
2012-10-22 02:38:29 PM  
FTA: The Athenian leader Solon implemented the first known Chicago Plan/New Deal in 599 BC to relieve farmers in hock to oligarchs enjoying private coinage. He cancelled debts, restituted lands seized by creditors, set floor-prices for commodities (much like Franklin Roosevelt), and consciously flooded the money supply with state-issued "debt-free" coinage.

Athens had no coinage until years after Solon, the debt cancellation was the same as land restitution because wealth was measured by land. He cancelled all debts, for everyone, which included people who had borrowed massively and more or less made out like bandits because they didn't have to pay back their loans. By everyone that is public and private. Anything anyone owed you was whoosh, gone. I dunno about the floor price thing. I mean he did some cool things, especially for a guy with absolute power in the 7th century BCE but I dunno what it has to do with this guys article.

Sorry, done geeking.
 
2012-10-22 02:40:43 PM  
You lost me in Solon.
 
2012-10-22 02:40:46 PM  

mr lawson: LasersHurt: But you characterize anything you thing is a step too far as "tyranny," so it makes you hard to negotiate with.

life is hard


I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't jump right on board with Libertarianism with such thoughtful discussion.
 
2012-10-22 02:41:23 PM  

Elegy: Now eliminate the fractional reserve requirements, and change the law so that I (the bank) now have to have 100% of deposits on hand. Surprise! Now no one can get credit, because I have no money to lend, instead I have to have all sit idling in my vault, by law. Good luck buying that house.


Uh, that's not how it works in this proposal.

The private bank would go and get a loan from the government (bank) in order to loan you your money. In this way, the government would have their foot on the gas pedal (or brake) in order to control the money supply.

To your perspective, you would still be getting a loan.
 
2012-10-22 02:41:28 PM  

BigNumber12: I'm currently reading Atlas Shrugged


Sorry to hear that. You'll get through it. Eventually.
 
2012-10-22 02:42:23 PM  
The banking mafia versus the IMF. Jesus Christ, it's like Aliens vs Predator - "whoever wins, we lose".

I was shaken a few years ago when I read an explanation of how the banking system works. These bastards - private companies - literally have a license to print money. It's monstrous. As Bertold Brecht said, "what is the crime or robbing a bank compared to the crime of founding one?" No wonder the muslim world regards the Christian and Jew banking system with disgust.
 
2012-10-22 02:43:17 PM  
That was a tough slog. Still, what I understood was this:

Banks now lend money well in excess of their actual deposits. This effectively creates money. If the borrower pays them back, the banks make money, and if they don't, the bank takes the asset (that the borrower was trying to buy).

So, the author of the study wanted to tie lending to assets, and make the reserve (and depositors) the only source of assets. That way, private financial institutions don't indirectly control the money supply. This would turn banks into what most people think they are: an intermediary between savers and borrowers.

Perhaps I don't see the danger, but that seems reasonable to me.
 
2012-10-22 02:43:32 PM  

bunner: boom-bust cycle


That reminds me of a song.

Link
 
2012-10-22 02:44:57 PM  

jigger: BigNumber12: I'm currently reading Atlas Shrugged

Sorry to hear that. You'll get through it. Eventually.



I'm currently working my way through You-Know-Who's 56-page speech near the end.
 
2012-10-22 02:44:58 PM  

lordaction: That is exactly right, however the Democrats and Republicans have zero to offer to a libertarian


Eh, you take what you can get when you can get it.
 
2012-10-22 02:47:14 PM  

skullkrusher: Ron Paul is a neo-confederate farkwit... much like most big Ls


i know. you're pretty much the only reason i do not say "all Libertarians i've met" on most things.

gingerjet: Kazan: in theory, no. in practice in the United States? almost every self-described Libertarian (note the Capital L) is a randite.

Most (big L) Libertarians have never read one of her books already through nor can discuss what her beliefs are so - no - I don't think most (big L) Libertarians in the US are followers of rand.

/there is a reason for that - Rand was an awful writer


whether or not they've read her they agree with her view of economics.
 
2012-10-22 02:48:35 PM  

mizchief: Elegy: How? You deposit 100 dollars in the bank. If, by law, I (the bank) need 10% of deposits on hand, I turn around and lend out the other 90 dollars to someone needing a mortgage at interest. Or a car. Or someone looking to expand their business. The interest on that loan then pays the interest that you accrue on your deposited savings, with some left over as a profit for the bank.

Yes, but you leave out the fun part. The builder who receives the cash from the borrower then turns around and deposits that money into the same bank which in turns loans it out again at 10 times it's value. Since we have a global reserve system, this all funnels back into the same system where the actual wealth (gold for ex) was long extracted by the bankers only leaving the IOU's behind.

Then as the system collapses, they bankers turn around and take back the house, which they then sell off to someone whom they just wrote another loan too. This is where the boom-bust cycle comes from, and as any 5th grader can see only the bankers will ever own real wealth.


This, and don't even get me started on the derivatives market. Banks are criminal organizations that hide behind smoke and mirrors.

Having the state suddenly seize control of the currency may be too extreme an approach, though. Countries all over the world should initiate audits of their central banks, then implement more stringent regulations with safeguards to keep the bankers from playing musical chairs with regulators. The derivatives market should be regulated immediately.
 
2012-10-22 02:48:52 PM  

slayer199: I've voted Libertarian since '92.


yes. you've voted US Libertarian party. thank you for proving my point you that are NOT a little-l libertarian but a united states "big-L" libertarian.

learn the difference before opening your cornhole.
 
2012-10-22 02:49:23 PM  
What I'm laughing at is that subby thinks that anything makes a libertarian curl up into the fetal position, instead of say, shrugging their shoulders and figuring out how to make a buck off it.

IMF's suggestion is government created paper fiat money instead of private banker created fiat money
/just like Nazi Germany
//America has had a strain of people that believe in this crap for a century, they are called "Greenbackers", and were even a third party in parts of the country
/// for results of their proposal to have government magically invent money instead of big banks, see a book called "The Vampire Economy" written by a German economist in I want to say 1946. https://mises.org/store/Product2.aspx?ProductId=371
////the whole reason that their are hard money die hards is because counterfeiting gold bars requires some gold(about a 1/16 in plating) and tungsten, which means that even someone that's been cheated still has something of value while people that have been cheated with paper have something they can use to keep warm with for about five minutes or so
//there's no perfect solution, no utopia, just trade offs whichever way you want to go and I believe there is ample evidence that the world will continue to spin either way
//there should be a hunting season on employees from Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Citigroup, etc.
//lot's and lots and lots O' slashies
//Robert Heinlein has a character that believes as I do who describes himself as a "rational anarchist", and no I really can't stand Ayn Rand
 
2012-10-22 02:49:35 PM  

BigNumber12: jigger: BigNumber12: I'm currently reading Atlas Shrugged

Sorry to hear that. You'll get through it. Eventually.


I'm currently working my way through You-Know-Who's 56-page speech near the end.


Oh, you're on the home stretch.

The only reason I read it, which was only about 3 years ago, btw, was because people kept talking about it and to say anything about it, I wanted to know what I was talking about. To say it was a chore is an understatement. It took me quite a while to get through it, mainly because it's not very well written and it's extremely boring and I can usually tear through the average 300-400 page book in a few sittings. It made me never want to read another thing by Ayn Rand. Then a few months later I went ahead and read The Fountainhead like an idiot. That one was better and easier to get through, but after that...no, no more Ayn Rand. Not worth the time.
 
2012-10-22 02:51:05 PM  

Kazan: i know. you're pretty much the only reason i do not say "all Libertarians i've met" on most things.


individual freedom and civil liberties comes before cutting taxes. I am not sure how anyone can call himself libertarian and prioritize the latter over the former
 
2012-10-22 02:51:31 PM  

Elegy: No fractional reserve banking? Good luck getting credit....


There would be a lot more money in the banking system if the banks didn't treat depositors as a cow to milk. Banks make a majority of their money from charging fees to their customers. What idiot would have their money in a bank right now?
 
2012-10-22 02:53:37 PM  

SquiggsIN: "My viewpoint is better than yours"

"No it isn't, your viewpoint is for idiots"

"Idiots like me are better than idiots like you"



Does this sum up this almost all of the content on every thread so far?


Yeah.
 
2012-10-22 02:59:39 PM  

bunner: david_gaithersburg: The ignorance from the left on display here is non-astonishing.

Any time somebody gets all squinty and eye roll-y and "oh, my dear boy, harrumph"y about the minutiae of on the folds in the elephant's skin, they usually have a vested interest in keeping people from noticing the f*cking huge elephant wearing it. The problem *is* fractional reserve banking, non existent money and it being printed like confetti to leverage actual wealth into an ever growing pool that only a few people are allowed to swim in. Amschel Rothschild stated things quite succinctly, years ago and the business plan hasn't shifted since.


Yeah, we all have a vested interest in avoiding the insanity discussed in the TFA. Unless we want to drastically reduce everyone's standard of living.
 
2012-10-22 03:00:45 PM  

DerAppie: Don't you have friends or family? I have made loans to and gotten loans from family members when times asked for it. With as added benefit that they are interest free. You know why I can borrow from family? Because I very rately do, never needed more than €50 and return the favour. No bank needed.



Thank you for answering my question for me. The TL;DR translation of your response is: No, you've never had to make payroll.
 
2012-10-22 03:02:08 PM  

david_gaithersburg: But you, the retarded left, just said that deficit spending is a good thing. Make up your mind child.


Civil discourse? Nahhh, just call someone a retarded child because OMG DA LEFTEEZ! Farking dickhole.
 
2012-10-22 03:02:19 PM  
I want my own private money the golden groppet. Ill be a groppetaire!!!
 
2012-10-22 03:02:40 PM  

jigger: BigNumber12: jigger: BigNumber12: I'm currently reading Atlas Shrugged

Sorry to hear that. You'll get through it. Eventually.


I'm currently working my way through You-Know-Who's 56-page speech near the end.

Oh, you're on the home stretch.

The only reason I read it, which was only about 3 years ago, btw, was because people kept talking about it and to say anything about it, I wanted to know what I was talking about. To say it was a chore is an understatement. It took me quite a while to get through it, mainly because it's not very well written and it's extremely boring and I can usually tear through the average 300-400 page book in a few sittings. It made me never want to read another thing by Ayn Rand. Then a few months later I went ahead and read The Fountainhead like an idiot. That one was better and easier to get through, but after that...no, no more Ayn Rand. Not worth the time.



That's the idea. My wife bought it for me because she knows that I like dystopian literature, and I figure that, for whatever it may be, it's an important piece of literature that offers a window into a different time in American history, and is referenced all the farking time. As this thread has demonstrated.
 
2012-10-22 03:03:58 PM  

Kazan: yes. you've voted US Libertarian party. thank you for proving my point you that are NOT a little-l libertarian but a united states "big-L" libertarian.


I'm still a small-l libertarian who votes LP. That also means we don't support Ron Paul, we're not all Randites, and we're not all minarchists. But thanks for the generalization.
 
2012-10-22 03:04:36 PM  

Mentalpatient87: david_gaithersburg: But you, the retarded left, just said that deficit spending is a good thing. Make up your mind child.

Civil discourse? Nahhh, just call someone a retarded child because OMG DA LEFTEEZ! Farking dickhole.


Hey dickhole, try reading what I was responding too.

Reading, wtf is it?
 
2012-10-22 03:04:38 PM  
DerAppie: Don't you have friends or family?

You know how rich people tend to be related to rich people?
 
2012-10-22 03:06:03 PM  
This is an awesome idea! It would force banks to only loan money to those people that they know will pay them back. If they don't give poor people credit, then things like the housing market collapse would be impossible. I can see no downsides to this whatsoever.
 
2012-10-22 03:08:49 PM  
I think these deck chairs would look great over there.
 
2012-10-22 03:09:30 PM  
img1.fark.net It's all deficit spending.
 
2012-10-22 03:12:31 PM  

ourbigdumbmouth: Slaves2Darkness: This is a really stupid idea because we would be bankrupting ourselves.


Here's a quick and fascinating breakdown by total amount held and percentage of total U.S. debt, according to Business Insider:

The U.S. Treasury: $1.63 trillion (11.3 percent)
Social Security trust fund: $2.67 trillion (19 percent)
U.S. households: $959.4 billion (6.6 percent)
Private pension funds: $504.7 billion (3.5 percent)
State and local governments: $506.1 billion (3.5 percent)
Mutual funds: $300.5 billion (2 percent)
Commercial banks: $301.8 billion (2.1 percent)
State, local and federal retirement funds: $320.9 billion (2.2 percent)
Money market mutual funds: $337.7 billion (2.4 percent)


Hong Kong: $121.9 billion (0.9 percent)
Caribbean banking centers: $148.3 (1 percent)
Taiwan: $153.4 billion (1.1 percent)
Brazil: $211.4 billion (1.5 percent)
Oil exporting countries: $229.8 billion (1.6 percent)
United Kingdom: $346.5 billion (2.4 percent)
Japan: $912.4 billion (6.4 percent)
China: $1.16 trillion (8 percent)

We owe foreign firms, countries, and other entities about 4.5 trillion dollars and we owe US firms, people, and entities 9.8 trillion dollars.

Why the fark would we the American People cancel the debt or default? How does that make any sense at all?

Now that is a good question.


because, at least we'll have a chance to build something better over the rubble?
 
2012-10-22 03:14:38 PM  
because a massive contraction in the money supply over night could in no way have adverse consequences.
 
2012-10-22 03:14:47 PM  
it is clear that the OP and many people on the thread know nothing about Libertarianism/libertarianism.

Many fell back to the same generalizations they claim the liberals/progressives/conservatives do.
 
2012-10-22 03:16:55 PM  

mizchief: Under the current system the banks have no problem letting people default since the money wasn't real to begin with and they end up with the actual property without really doing anything, while the rest of us work our asses off to either build the house or work for other bank-owned corporations hard enough to squat in the bank-owned house for 30 years.


We're all working for the company store and it's all company scrip. P.S. I'll need your full name to ink onto the ballot this Nov.
 
2012-10-22 03:17:48 PM  

misanthropologist: Amos Quito: Sounds like a great idea... but


[2.bp.blogspot.com image 578x522]


Coming from the IMF???

I know, right? This is the New World Order that was prophesied years ago. This is Obama's black helicopters and white tanks rolling through American cities to implement universal communism the day after he gets re-elected. This is the end of the world as we know it, friends, and the beginning of the Tribulation.

Or so Mitt's big money backers will have us believe, soon enough. Why have they not seized on this as part of their anti-Obama ad campaigns?



You don't know much about the games the IMF plays with nations, peoples, industry and capital, do you?
 
2012-10-22 03:18:08 PM  
The idea that you could "painlessly" end fractional banking in anything less than several decades is a pipe dream
 
2012-10-22 03:23:32 PM  

david_gaithersburg: Hey dickhole, try reading what I was responding too.

Reading, wtf is it?


Ohh, so he started it and that makes you totally justified... You've totally got the high ground here, that's for sure.
 
2012-10-22 03:24:41 PM  
What we really need is a cap on what a single entity can earn and own. It is not right that a single person can be given hundreds of millions a years and own billions and another person, who works just as hard, if not harder can only just put a roof over their head and food on the table.

That is all. Go back to your puppet wars again.

/"I think the puppet on the right reflects my views, you are stupid for preferring the other puppet"
//"I prefer the puppet on the left, it speaks to my heart, you are stupid for preferring the other puppet"
///I see that there are 2 puppets being operated by the same guy and don`t give him my money...
 
2012-10-22 03:28:20 PM  

TDBoedy: because a massive contraction in the money supply over night could in no way have adverse consequences.


Same as a massive expansion in the money supply (quantitative easing) wouldn`t devalue the cash in your pocket by the same amount...
 
2012-10-22 03:29:46 PM  

bunner: DerAppie: Don't you have friends or family?

You know how rich people tend to be related to rich people?


Yeah, except that my parents aren't rich. While growing up they made less than the national median income. Beyond that it is about being smart with your money. I'm currently without a full time jobs (work 15 hours a week as a cleaner just to make ends meet) and live on €155 a week. The only reason I'm not on government aid is because I refuse to apply for as long as I can pay my own bills. This means that I have less than €5 Euro a day to spend on food. Which is very, very easy by the way. If an appliance breaks, or I need new clothes, I have money in the bank from when times were better. Once I find full time employment I will replenish what I used to prepare for the next downturn. Is it that strange to expect the government or a bank to work on the same principle? Don't spend what you don't have.

/Yeah, I'm very rich and on top of the world
 
2012-10-22 03:30:19 PM  

Kazan: slayer199: Uh, no. Ron Paul is supported by libertarian-leaning Republicans, not Libertarians. I don't know any Libertarians that support Ron Paul. He's a Republican with some libertarian-leaning ideas....

almost every farking Libertarian i have ever met is just a randite republican embarassed to call themselves republican.

there are almost not "little l" libertarians in the united states. which you're trying to claim to be. and quite frankly i don't buy what you're selling based on your posting history.


I think I am, I know the "free market" will not cure all ills, we still need some government and regulation, I think pot should be legal but not necessarily all drugs. I also believe in universal health care because it levels the playing field and makes it easier for the average joe to start his own business.

I decided to shed labels though, it's all loaded bullshiat.
 
2012-10-22 03:32:16 PM  

DerAppie: bunner: DerAppie: Don't you have friends or family?

You know how rich people tend to be related to rich people?

Yeah, except that my parents aren't rich. While growing up they made less than the national median income. Beyond that it is about being smart with your money. I'm currently without a full time jobs (work 15 hours a week as a cleaner just to make ends meet) and live on €155 a week. The only reason I'm not on government aid is because I refuse to apply for as long as I can pay my own bills. This means that I have less than €5 Euro a day to spend on food. Which is very, very easy by the way. If an appliance breaks, or I need new clothes, I have money in the bank from when times were better. Once I find full time employment I will replenish what I used to prepare for the next downturn. Is it that strange to expect the government or a bank to work on the same principle? Don't spend what you don't have.

/Yeah, I'm very rich and on top of the world


Um, no, that wasn't the point. I was trying to say that, conversely, poor people tend to be related to poor people with very little venture capital handy.
 
BHK
2012-10-22 03:32:43 PM  
Yeah, that's a great idea, let's copy the Romans of the 5th century! In another hundred years we'll have a return to feudalism as debt/tax slaves sell their lives to their oligarchic overlords in order to gain protection from those taxes and debt.
 
2012-10-22 03:32:46 PM  

vartian: Slaxl: Or am I too cynical?

Take the money out of the hands of people that care only about money. That's progress; the rest we can figure out.


This. And I work in banking lol.
 
2012-10-22 03:36:28 PM  
I love how libertarians tell us we don't know how "the real world works".

There isn't a single place on Earth where their ideas have created a decent society.
 
2012-10-22 03:41:38 PM  
Paul Ryan is not a libertarian!
People who self-identify as "libertarian" or "libertarian-leaning" but who are in favor of Paul Ryan have no concept of genuine liberty. They are nothing more than goddamn sons of farking biatches eating shiat and farking their got damm mothers in the back of a farking trailer farking farkers from farkland in farksauce with farking double cream farking gott damm anti-evolutionary religious American Christian taliban farkorama mcfarkers with shiatting monkey brained bullshiat moranic multi-arsed basterds.
Seriously.
 
2012-10-22 03:42:51 PM  

Arkanaut: BTW:

We return to the historical norm, before Charles II placed control of the money supply in private hands with the English Free Coinage Act of 1666.

Yeah, this isn't going to alarm any conspiracy theorists.


Didn't the zenith of the British Empire start right around 1666? Seems private control of the money supply in general worked out well for what was otherwise a backward, inhospitable little island that even the Vikings didn't particularly want.
 
2012-10-22 03:43:01 PM  

jaytkay: I love how libertarians tell us we don't know how "the real world works".

There isn't a single place on Earth where their ideas have created a decent society.


There isn't a single place on earth where it's been tried....and no, Somalia isn't one of them.
 
Ant
2012-10-22 03:44:48 PM  

DerAppie: Elegy: No fractional reserve banking? Good luck getting credit....

Live within your means and you won't need credit.


Good luck living within your means when everyone else except you is buying everything on credit, and the prices rise accordingly.
 
2012-10-22 03:45:49 PM  

skullkrusher: If I am a bank and you came to me with $500 and I promised to give you $550 a year from now, I can lend that $500 out without violating the 100% reserve requirement. However, if you came to me with $500 which you could demand at any time, I would be in violation if I were to lend out that money.


Banks already do this. It's called safe deposit boxes.

The catch is that they charge you interest, not the other way around.
 
2012-10-22 03:46:15 PM  
d23
This isn't a contradiction of my point. The current Republican "libertarians" only really care that their precious corporations don't have to abide by any rules and that's it. They are as far from classic libertarianism as you can get. They couldn't care less about the liberty of the individual.

Then that's not Anarchy. May I suggest "Corporatocracy" or "Corporate Feudalism"?


jigger
The people who made this movie have been promulgating this plan for decades.

I like how the title specifies "international" bankers. As if domination by domestic bankers would be OK. I've yet to figure out the exact reason of the nationalist tendency among so-called "Libertarians". You can't be pro-unrestrained free-market capitalism and pro-national borders. Without being a racist, I mean.


Suede head
These bastards - private companies - literally have a license to print money.

I'll say this after your comment because it's particularly naive:

No. No they don't. You don't understand what financing is. The same reasoning that says "BANKS AM PRINTIN MONIEZ!!" might as well be saying "MONEY'S JUST LITTLE GREEN PIECES OF PAPER!! IT'S NOT REAL!!!".
 
2012-10-22 03:47:28 PM  
Replacing all Fed-issued US Dollars with state-issued New US Dollars is not a panacea.

That's why MY crackpot plan is better; it calls for all money to be replaced by a currency called "Panacea".

/the bills are shaped like isosceles triangle and the obtuseness of the largest angle reflects its value.
 
2012-10-22 03:49:05 PM  

slayer199: There isn't a single place on earth where it's been tried....and no, Somalia isn't one of them.


And why hasn't it been tried anywhere? Nowhere in the real world real enough to be compatible with libertarianism?
 
2012-10-22 03:49:23 PM  

slayer199: I don't know any Libertarians that support Ron Paul


Except, you know, the actual Libertarian Party, which nominated him for President in the 1988 election.
 
2012-10-22 03:50:15 PM  
snorkblaster
People who self-identify as "libertarian" or "libertarian-leaning" but who are in favor of Paul Ryan have no concept of genuine liberty. They are nothing more than goddamn sons of farking biatches eating shiat and farking their got damm mothers in the back of a farking trailer farking farkers from farkland in farksauce with farking double cream farking gott damm anti-evolutionary religious American Christian taliban farkorama mcfarkers with shiatting monkey brained bullshiat moranic multi-arsed basterds.
Seriously.


Tell us how you really feel.


skullkrusher
If I am a bank and you came to me with $500 and I promised to give you $550 a year from now, I can lend that $500 out without violating the 100% reserve requirement. However, if you came to me with $500 which you could demand at any time, I would be in violation if I were to lend out that money.

Yeah it sucks how everyone always demands all their money back immediately after depositing it, thus preventing banks from just having enough cash on hand to cover day-to-day withdrawals and using the rest to make loans.
 
2012-10-22 03:50:35 PM  
Yeah, I don't believe in these:

www.ppc.bz
 
2012-10-22 03:50:44 PM  

YixilTesiphon: OK, but why did any company need to buy it? The banks clearly didn't learn the lesson, which they would have had they been allowed to self-destruct.

GM was ridiculous too. It had actual hard assets that people would have been interested in acquiring had it gone under, but instead the thing was kept alive.


1. The value whole was worth more than the collection of scrap iron that was the physical assets. Chrysler's remains were purchased for pennies on the dollar.
2. There exists value in retaining American ownership in at least some auto manufacturers. Had GM been sold, Ford would have been the last one standing, and even Ford was looking shaky at the time. From a purely national defense standpoint, GM represents a lot of potential manufacturing capacity that would disappear.
3. You're overlooking somewhat the difficulty of wholly absorbing one of the largest companies on Earth. GM's full scale is hard to understand, and they are very employee-heavy.
 
2012-10-22 03:52:35 PM  

clyph: Except, you know, the actual Libertarian Party, which nominated him for President in the 1988 election.


Which I wasn't at the time. I'm talking in my time as a libertarian (going back to '92), I don't know any libertarians that support him. The party has evolved whether you choose to believe it or not.
 
2012-10-22 03:54:03 PM  

BHK: Yeah, that's a great idea, let's copy the Romans of the 5th century! In another hundred years we'll have a return to feudalism as debt/tax slaves sell their lives to their oligarchic overlords in order to gain protection from those taxes and debt.


If you actually read the source you would know they were referencing a Roman monetary system that lasted from the 5th Century BCE to around the 2nd Century BCE

FTFA:

"Solon's reforms were so successful that, 150 years later, the early Roman republic
sent a delegation to Greece to study them. They became the foundation of the Roman
monetary system from 454 BC (Lex Aternia) until the time of the Punic wars (Peruzzi
(1985))."

"Many historians (Del Mar (1895)) have partly attributed the eventual collapse of the
Roman republic to the emergence of a plutocracy that accumulated immense private
wealth at the expense of the general citizenry. Their ascendancy was facilitated by the
introduction of privately controlled silver money, and later gold money, at prices that far
exceeded their earlier commodity value prices, during the emergency period of the Punic
wars."
 
2012-10-22 03:58:17 PM  

RanDomino: The same reasoning that says "BANKS AM PRINTIN MONIEZ!!" might as well be saying "MONEY'S JUST LITTLE GREEN PIECES OF PAPER!! IT'S NOT REAL!!!".


Not to put too fine a point on it, but it sort of isn't. It has weight and takes up space, but IOUs backed by "the full faith and credit" of a bunch of workaday monkeys who are up to *their* eyeballs in hock and looking for work is pretty much Monopoly money.
 
2012-10-22 04:00:58 PM  

bunner: poor people tend to be related to poor people with very little venture capital handy.


You need venture capital? Do you know what rich people like? becoming even richer. Write a decent business plan and get your idea out there. If you can convince people that you can make a profit there will be someone willing to invest. Also: DerAppie. Bottom paragraph.
 
2012-10-22 04:01:18 PM  
Even Ron Paul can't save us on his own. It is going to take us saving ourselves.

The thing is though, the game is rigged.

No matter how much hard earned honest money the, "We the People" of the world could gather together to build their world the way they want, others can fire up the fake money presses and print up what ever it takes to get their way.
 
2012-10-22 04:01:51 PM  

This text is now purple: Arkanaut: BTW:

We return to the historical norm, before Charles II placed control of the money supply in private hands with the English Free Coinage Act of 1666.

Yeah, this isn't going to alarm any conspiracy theorists.

Didn't the zenith of the British Empire start right around 1666? Seems private control of the money supply in general worked out well for what was otherwise a backward, inhospitable little island that even the Vikings didn't particularly want.


Eh, these kinds of things are always subjective. If you mean the absolute height of British power, that's generally regarded as the late Victorian Era, when they controlled all of India, Canada, Australia, and various African possessions. If you're talking about when they started edging past France / Spain etc. in colonizing the world, you might be a bit closer, but I personally would place that after the War of the Spanish Succcession, which would be a few decades (and one revolution) after what you said.
 
2012-10-22 04:02:06 PM  

muck4doo: slayer199: ghare: No, we understand the LP just fine: nuts, who used to be Republicans but are now embarrassed to admit it. But mostly nuts.

mr lawson: man...don't even try. The left will never understand and the right just thinks we are godless heathens.

Good advice.

Yeah, never argue with an idiot. Ghare certainly is one, and he is always concerned about Mexicans as well.


Ghare isn't an idiot, he's a troll.

slayer199: Kazan: yes. you've voted US Libertarian party. thank you for proving my point you that are NOT a little-l libertarian but a united states "big-L" libertarian.

I'm still a small-l libertarian who votes LP. That also means we don't support Ron Paul, we're not all Randites, and we're not all minarchists. But thanks for the generalizationconclusions based upon observation of nearly all self-identifying LP supporters.



what you do more important than what you say. and what you do and what you say are two different things.

shortymac: I think I am, I know the "free market" will not cure all ills, we still need some government and regulation, I think pot should be legal but not necessarily all drugs. I also believe in universal health care because it levels the playing field and makes it easier for the average joe to start his own business.

I decided to shed labels though, it's all loaded bullshiat.


most real-libertarians don't self-identify as "Libertarian" was part of my point
 
2012-10-22 04:03:17 PM  

poot_rootbeer: And why hasn't it been tried anywhere? Nowhere in the real world real enough to be compatible with libertarianism?


Because the idea of individual liberty and smaller government scares people. One only needs to look at the reactions in this thread. People WANT to be taken care of. People are fearful of the personal responsibility aspect of individual liberty. So to many, ceding individual liberty for government power is an acceptable choice.

That isn't to say government is NOT necessary. It's just that there's few limitations on the power of the Federal government at this point. People want to wave a flag for their party and say, "My Guy is different, when he gets in things will change!" The truth is that neither party returns government powers taken by their predecessor. Look at Obama's promise not to use federal resources for going after states that have legalized medical marijuana. Gitmo is still open. He's increased drone strikes. Has he been more transparent? No. I'm not just pinning this only on Obama, it's just the way our two-party system is functioning. There's very little difference between the two parties. They both increase the size and power of the federal government at the expense of individual liberty. Will Romney remove the HCRA? No.
 
2012-10-22 04:03:41 PM  
Yeeeaaaahhh.....and just like that, suddenly national debts are erased. Sure.

I'm more interested in what's behind this being put forward by the IMF......since, as the article says, this "Chicago Plan" goes back to the Constitution of Solon in ancient Athens, and historically, it was done for a long period. If this was a workable system, sure, consider going back to it. But if, as the article alludes to, the present "fractional banking" system may be a far more efficient way of capitalizing growth, how is that supposed to help the moribund world economy?

I agree with TFA where it states "Let the arguments begin," and we shall see.
 
2012-10-22 04:04:15 PM  

slayer199: jaytkay: I love how libertarians tell us we don't know how "the real world works".

There isn't a single place on Earth where their ideas have created a decent society.

There isn't a single place on earth where it's been tried....and no, Somalia isn't one of them.


Some people tout medieval Iceland as a "libertarian" society.
 
2012-10-22 04:04:30 PM  

DerAppie: You need venture capital? Do you know what rich people like? becoming even richer. Write a decent business plan and get your idea out there. If you can convince people that you can make a profit there will be someone willing to invest.


For a huge chunk of the business and a hefty margin over a guaranteed time. So, essentially, I can either shoestring it, work for a bank, or work for a VC collective. I think maybe I'll try and shoestring it or even try kickstarter.
 
2012-10-22 04:04:55 PM  

TDBoedy: because a massive contraction in the money supply over night could in no way have adverse consequences.


What makes you think the US Congress would issue less currency? If anything they'll issue more as a sort of vote buying scheme.
 
2012-10-22 04:06:19 PM  

Slaves2Darkness: We owe foreign firms, countries, and other entities about 4.5 trillion dollars and we owe US firms, people, and entities 9.8 trillion dollars.

Why the fark would we the American People cancel the debt or default? How does that make any sense at all?


Where do you think money that we pay on those debts comes from? (Hint: I'm looking for something deeper than 'taxes')
 
2012-10-22 04:06:32 PM  

Kazan: most real-libertarians don't self-identify as "Libertarian" was part of my point


Let me ask you this. Do you agree with everything your party stands for? I don't, but the Libertarian party is the closest thing to small-l libertarianism around.

I took the party to task for nominating Bob Barr (I wrote in Gary Nolan in the General Election) who was a HORRIBLE candidate. Unlike Gary Johnson, he didn't have any legitimate history of leaning libertarian.
 
2012-10-22 04:07:00 PM  

This text is now purple: skullkrusher: If I am a bank and you came to me with $500 and I promised to give you $550 a year from now, I can lend that $500 out without violating the 100% reserve requirement. However, if you came to me with $500 which you could demand at any time, I would be in violation if I were to lend out that money.

Banks already do this. It's called safe deposit boxes.

The catch is that they charge you interest, not the other way around.


no, it's called time deposits and in the absence of FRB, it would be the norm, not the exception.
 
2012-10-22 04:10:51 PM  

slayer199: 1. Ron Paul is not a libertarian, is not widely supported by libertarians.
2. Libertarianism is not the same as Randianism.


blog.americanfeast.com

"G'day, mate, it's a bonzer avo for a logical fallacy. 'Course I'm a True Scotsman, bloody oath! Got any tinnies in the Esky, y'drongo?"
 
2012-10-22 04:10:56 PM  

RanDomino: Yeah it sucks how everyone always demands all their money back immediately after depositing it, thus preventing banks from just having enough cash on hand to cover day-to-day withdrawals and using the rest to make loans.


for an alleged anarchist, you sure do seem to love our private oligarch enriching federal reserve system. Might wanna re-read your talking points, chum
 
2012-10-22 04:13:12 PM  

mizchief: jigger: TDBoedy: because a massive contraction in the money supply over night could in no way have adverse consequences.

What makes you think the US Congress would issue less currency? If anything they'll issue more as a sort of vote buying scheme.

fark it. Lets just use bitcoins


I totally missed the bus on those. When I first heard of them they were worth about 50 cents. I didn't see any use in buying any. A year and a half later they bubbled up to $30! Damn, if I had only taken advantage of that. If I had sunk $5000 into it, I could have turned it into $200-300k. Then they sunk back to about $2, but now they're up to $12 again. If I had perfect future vision, I could have turned $200k into $1.2M. Oh well, hindsight is 20/20.
 
2012-10-22 04:15:51 PM  

SageC: Ricardo Klement: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRGGGHHHHH!
*sploosh*

Now that my head exploded, fractional reserve banking is not some magical power to conjure forth money. It is a mathematical side-effect of lending out money and accepting deposits. If I lend Bob $20, and he buys a bottle of cheap whiskey from Jack, who then asks me to hang on to the cash for him because he doesn't have pockets, and then I lend that $20 to Bill, I just created money. And I am not a bank, and I am not regulated by the feds.

No you didn't! You just gave Bill the money Jack told you to hang on to even though it wasn't yours to give. You're not a money creator, you're a jerk who spends other people's money! Go get Jack's money back before he hears about what you did and deposits his fist into your face.


I may be a jerk, but I still created money.
 
2012-10-22 04:16:28 PM  

mr lawson: Ricardo Klement: And I'm a supply-side classical economist.

There is no such thing as "supply-side" or "demand-side" economics. Only Capital-side economics.


Thanks, Karl.
 
2012-10-22 04:16:48 PM  

slayer199: poot_rootbeer: And why hasn't it been tried anywhere? Nowhere in the real world real enough to be compatible with libertarianism?

Because the idea of individual liberty and smaller government scares people. One only needs to look at the reactions in this thread. People WANT to be taken care of. People are fearful of the personal responsibility aspect of individual liberty. So to many, ceding individual liberty for government power is an acceptable choice.

That isn't to say government is NOT necessary. It's just that there's few limitations on the power of the Federal government at this point. People want to wave a flag for their party and say, "My Guy is different, when he gets in things will change!" The truth is that neither party returns government powers taken by their predecessor. Look at Obama's promise not to use federal resources for going after states that have legalized medical marijuana. Gitmo is still open. He's increased drone strikes. Has he been more transparent? No. I'm not just pinning this only on Obama, it's just the way our two-party system is functioning. There's very little difference between the two parties. They both increase the size and power of the federal government at the expense of individual liberty. Will Romney remove the HCRA? No.


I will wave a flag for anyone who runs for president on a platform of making lobbies illegal, 2 years mandatory military service, capping military spending on anything other than the actual military to 10% of the spending budget, requiring any companies that build or maintain "security" forces and equipment to have a sole and single contract with our federal and state governments, dismantling health insurance models that function on healthcare as a profit industry and move it into an education and infrastructure model, provide reliable public transport, revoke any and all religious privilege from all state and federal government levels, redact Constitutional Amendment 17, ban any and all secondary income for elected officials for a period of 10 or more years leaving elected office and banning people who use cell phones to text and drive from ever using an electronic device, or driving, ever again. Just kidding, I couldn't figure out how to work in that Eddie Izzard flag skit.
 
2012-10-22 04:20:21 PM  
Funny thing about commies. They print money, too.
 
2012-10-22 04:23:52 PM  
The No True Scotsman fallacy is easily the most misused logical fallacy. If it's indisputable that a person was born in Scotland and is Scottish by nature, then saying he's not a "true" Scotsman because he doesn't believe or act a certain way is the NTS fallacy. But, if someone's classification that is based on certain characteristics, which may be questionable, is in dispute, then that's not the NTS fallacy per se.

For example, if a black person listens to Creed and Nickelback and someone says about them, "They are not truly black because they listen to Creed," that's the NTS fallacy.

If someone calls themselves a Catholic but does not take communion, go to mass, or go to confessional and someone says about them, "They don't take communion, etc. so they are not a true Catholic," that's not the NTS fallacy. You can dispute whether they are truly Catholic or not, but a person claiming they are not truly Catholic is not committing a logical fallacy.
 
2012-10-22 04:28:00 PM  
I'm sure the Tea Party Libertarians love the big corporations and their personhood status. Just like the Founding Fathers they so love to portray
 
2012-10-22 04:28:14 PM  
 
2012-10-22 04:32:15 PM  

vartian: Slaxl: Or am I too cynical?

Take the money out of the hands of people that care only about money. That's progress; the rest we can figure out.


you actually think congress doesn't only care about money??? seriously? Congress? Our congress? Not care about money?

words fail me
 
2012-10-22 04:35:25 PM  

Aeon Rising: vartian: Slaxl: Or am I too cynical?

Take the money out of the hands of people that care only about money. That's progress; the rest we can figure out.

you actually think congress doesn't only care about money??? seriously? Congress? Our congress? Not care about money?

words fail me


They shouldn't. That's what the children have been indoctrinated to believe.
 
2012-10-22 04:35:53 PM  

jigger: Elegy: You paid cash up front for ... your last car that you bought?

Yes. Is it so hard to save money?


Yes. Let's assume you're an everyday guy doing an everyday job for which you are paid a bit above minimum wage. You take home $10 an hour after taxes, work a 40-hour full time week, and thus you're bringing home $400/week, for $20,800/year.

Let's remove the thought of family, here; just a bachelor. Let's assume he's living frugally but lives alone.

There's no way he can afford a decent place on that income, so assume he's sharing a place and this is his part of the rent. Chances are he needs a car, but for the sake of argument, let's say it's paid for.

$800 - rent
$ 100 - utillities (heat, electricity, water)
$ 50 - cheap prepaid phone
$ 400 - food
$ 100 - car insurance
$ 100 - gas (one tank per week)
$ 100 - misc expenses (average)
-------
$1650

If he's extraordinarily careful, never has car trouble, never has unexpected medical expenses, doesn't take any routine medication, and has no pets or family connections -- well, he's pocketing a sweet $83 per month. That's not quite $1k/ year.

In 20 years, he MIGHT have enough for a down payment on a house.
 
2012-10-22 04:38:04 PM  

Jackpot777: slayer199: 1. Ron Paul is not a libertarian, is not widely supported by libertarians.
2. Libertarianism is not the same as Randianism.

[blog.americanfeast.com image 403x335]

"G'day, mate, it's a bonzer avo for a logical fallacy. 'Course I'm a True Scotsman, bloody oath! Got any tinnies in the Esky, y'drongo?"


Yeah, about that.....


Mozart Was a Red
A Morality Play In One Act

by Murray N. Rothbard
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/mozart.html
 
2012-10-22 04:55:16 PM  

Ricardo Klement: I may be a jerk, but I still created money.


No, you stole money from Peter and lent it to Paul, on the hope that Paul would repay you before Peter noticed his money was missing.
 
2012-10-22 05:01:14 PM  

Slaves2Darkness: This is a really stupid idea because we would be bankrupting ourselves.


Here's a quick and fascinating breakdown by total amount held and percentage of total U.S. debt, according to Business Insider:

The U.S. Treasury: $1.63 trillion (11.3 percent)
Social Security trust fund: $2.67 trillion (19 percent)
U.S. households: $959.4 billion (6.6 percent)
Private pension funds: $504.7 billion (3.5 percent)
State and local governments: $506.1 billion (3.5 percent)
Mutual funds: $300.5 billion (2 percent)
Commercial banks: $301.8 billion (2.1 percent)
State, local and federal retirement funds: $320.9 billion (2.2 percent)
Money market mutual funds: $337.7 billion (2.4 percent)


Hong Kong: $121.9 billion (0.9 percent)
Caribbean banking centers: $148.3 (1 percent)
Taiwan: $153.4 billion (1.1 percent)
Brazil: $211.4 billion (1.5 percent)
Oil exporting countries: $229.8 billion (1.6 percent)
United Kingdom: $346.5 billion (2.4 percent)
Japan: $912.4 billion (6.4 percent)
China: $1.16 trillion (8 percent)

We owe foreign firms, countries, and other entities about 4.5 trillion dollars and we owe US firms, people, and entities 9.8 trillion dollars.

Why the fark would we the American People cancel the debt or default? How does that make any sense at all?


Credit Default Swaps = ~$1.5 Quadrillion
 
2012-10-22 05:04:00 PM  

david_gaithersburg: Mentalpatient87: david_gaithersburg: But you, the retarded left, just said that deficit spending is a good thing. Make up your mind child.

Civil discourse? Nahhh, just call someone a retarded child because OMG DA LEFTEEZ! Farking dickhole.

Hey dickhole, try reading what I was responding too.

Reading, wtf is it?


Magnets, obviously.
 
2012-10-22 05:05:00 PM  
[...] dates deep into history and lies at the root of debt jubilees in the ancient religions of Mesopotian [sic] and the Middle East.

Debt jubilees and ancient religions are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.

/Yes, I know, I stretched it, but it was hard to pass up.
 
2012-10-22 05:13:30 PM  

clyph: Ricardo Klement: I may be a jerk, but I still created money.

No, you stole money from Peter and lent it to Paul, on the hope that Paul would repay you before Peter noticed his money was missing.


I still created money. If I offered Peter a free checking account, and charged interest to Paul, I'm distinguishable from a bank only in name.
 
2012-10-22 05:14:20 PM  

clyph: Ricardo Klement: I may be a jerk, but I still created money.

No, you stole money from Peter and lent it to Paul, on the hope that Paul would repay you before Peter noticed his money was missing.


Plus, you forget I have assets. I have Bob's IOU for the $20 I lent him to begin with.
 
2012-10-22 05:17:04 PM  

jvowles: Yes. Let's assume you're an everyday guy doing an everyday job for which you are paid a bit above minimum wage. You take home $10 an hour after taxes, work a 40-hour full time week, and thus you're bringing home $400/week, for $20,800/year.

Let's remove the thought of family, here; just a bachelor. Let's assume he's living frugally but lives alone.

There's no way he can afford a decent place on that income, so assume he's sharing a place and this is his part of the rent. Chances are he needs a car, but for the sake of argument, let's say it's paid for.

$800 - rent
$ 100 - utillities (heat, electricity, water)
$ 50 - cheap prepaid phone
$ 400 - food
$ 100 - car insurance
$ 100 - gas (one tank per week)
$ 100 - misc expenses (average)
-------
$1650

If he's extraordinarily careful, never has car trouble, never has unexpected medical expenses, doesn't take any routine medication, and has no pets or family connections -- well, he's pocketing a sweet $83 per month. That's not quite $1k/ year.

In 20 years, he MIGHT have enough for a down payment on a house.


Uh, when I wasn't making any money (in the range of which you speak) I had roommates and we rented a house or I lived with a buddy that owned a house but wanted help with his mortage. I was able to afford a new car (granted, it was an economy car...but still a new car). I still had a roommate which is how I was able to save for my condo and afford a condo in a nice area when I was making half of what I make 10 year later. Could I have upgraded to a larger home/condo? Sure. Why would I?

Hell, I still drive an economy car (though I will be upgrading to a new car next year). Point is that it can be done and if someone is making $25k and still making $25k 20 years later, that's on them.
 
2012-10-22 05:17:49 PM  

jvowles: jigger: Elegy: You paid cash up front for ... your last car that you bought?

Yes. Is it so hard to save money?

Yes. Let's assume you're an everyday guy doing an everyday job for which you are paid a bit above minimum wage. You take home $10 an hour after taxes, work a 40-hour full time week, and thus you're bringing home $400/week, for $20,800/year.

Let's remove the thought of family, here; just a bachelor. Let's assume he's living frugally but lives alone.

There's no way he can afford a decent place on that income, so assume he's sharing a place and this is his part of the rent. Chances are he needs a car, but for the sake of argument, let's say it's paid for.

$800 - rent
$ 100 - utillities (heat, electricity, water)
$ 50 - cheap prepaid phone
$ 400 - food
$ 100 - car insurance
$ 100 - gas (one tank per week)
$ 100 - misc expenses (average)
-------
$1650

If he's extraordinarily careful, never has car trouble, never has unexpected medical expenses, doesn't take any routine medication, and has no pets or family connections -- well, he's pocketing a sweet $83 per month. That's not quite $1k/ year.

In 20 years, he MIGHT have enough for a down payment on a house.


What kind of house are we talking about here? And some people should not have a mortgage. Isn't that one of the things that started the whole mess recently?
 
2012-10-22 05:21:50 PM  
The amount of debt derivatives extant and collectable presently is greater than the GDP of,

Wait for it.

Earth.

So, yeah, that would be a shame if all that just got wiped off the chalkboard like so much poorly drawn stick figures in funny poses. And while you're at it, please tell my how necessary pulling money out of your ass with worthless pieces of gymnastically structured paper issues is to our fiscal well being.
 
2012-10-22 05:25:04 PM  

mizchief: Ricardo Klement: clyph: Ricardo Klement: I may be a jerk, but I still created money.

No, you stole money from Peter and lent it to Paul, on the hope that Paul would repay you before Peter noticed his money was missing.

I still created money. If I offered Peter a free checking account, and charged interest to Paul, I'm distinguishable from a bank only in name.

And we all know that free-checking was created as a way to mine and sell marketing data correct?


Really kind of irrelevant to the discussion, but note that free checking is going away with the capping of interest rates and penalties on credit cards.
 
2012-10-22 05:31:05 PM  

Elegy: No fractional reserve banking? Good luck getting credit....


The markets would adjust to where it wouldn't matter.
 
2012-10-22 05:44:43 PM  

bunner: The amount of debt derivatives extant and collectable presently is greater than the GDP of,

Wait for it.

Earth.


That's why the bailouts were such bullshiat. They could have told the banks to repudiate the phony debt they had built up with each other based on bets with phantom money.
 
2012-10-22 05:51:32 PM  
 
2012-10-22 05:57:05 PM  
I am guessing that there is some kind of economic elasticity in the current system that would be lacking in the one presented in TFA. Mind you, I spend a year and a half in economics classes thinking the best way to learn economics is to read Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds and take a lab course in building and fine-tuning bullshiat detectors, so to me this looks like two farmers arguing over whose herd make the most fragrant plops.

I am also guessing that the subjective evaluation of said elasticity tracks closely to the perceived political biases of the evaluator. People with prodigious credentials will come down firmly on both sides with equal fervor and equal evangelistic certainty, and people who don't understand will agree with whomever seems to be spewing their own particular brand of myopia. In the end, people who don't undertand the models will be the ones choosing betwen them, and their decisions will be based on bias, ignorance, and misidentified self interest. Nobody wins but the money vultures.

I am further assuming, based on what little I know of human nature, that man can create nothing that man cannot undermine, and no system can escape eventual wharrgarrblation when contaminated by humanity's endless ability to corrupt. Even if we change the system and the new one ends up running smoothly, eventually some former politician with his hand firmly in the public purse and his tongue firmly up Satan's backside will start us on the vertiginous backslide into kleptocracy and then people will get all misty-eyed about the good old days when we didn't have problems like these, nosiree, and the goddam pendulum starts its inexorable return to the same place as before with a whole new generation of idiots to screw it up just like we did.

Also, this is from the IMF, so of course they will disavow any knowledge of it. They've been acting squirrely ever since Tom Cruise started working for them.
 
2012-10-22 05:58:35 PM  
skullkrusher
for an alleged anarchist, you sure do seem to love our private oligarch enriching federal reserve system. Might wanna re-read your talking points, chum

Don't think I'm advocating it. You can't destroy something if you don't have a clear picture of how it works.


bunner
The amount of debt derivatives extant and collectable presently is greater than the GDP

It doesn't have to all be paid back in one year.
 
2012-10-22 06:06:05 PM  

RanDomino: bunner
The amount of debt derivatives extant and collectable presently is greater than the GDP

It doesn't have to all be paid back in one year.



Yeah, we can make earth bigger in a few years. You left out the "of earth" part. That was sort of the point. What do you suppose the probable time needed would be to, like, invent more money to pay that back with from, you know, earth?
 
2012-10-22 06:10:07 PM  

slayer199: Kazan: most real-libertarians don't self-identify as "Libertarian" was part of my point

Let me ask you this. Do you agree with everything your party stands for? I don't, but the Libertarian party is the closest thing to small-l libertarianism around.

I took the party to task for nominating Bob Barr (I wrote in Gary Nolan in the General Election) who was a HORRIBLE candidate. Unlike Gary Johnson, he didn't have any legitimate history of leaning libertarian.


of course i don't agree with everything, however i'm still not buying what you're selling because it smells of the south end of a northbound bovine.

reading up on your favored candidates... they're fiscal conservatives

sorry.. fiscal conservatism is bullshiat and is what earns them the Randite moniker. nothing in libertarianism requires that shiat, and more thought out libertarian positions recognize that the concentration of wealth (and economic power) that fiscal conservatism engenders is harmful to actual liberty.
 
2012-10-22 06:15:19 PM  

Kazan: fiscal conservatism is bullshiat and is what earns them the Randite moniker. nothing in libertarianism requires that shiat, and more thought out libertarian positions recognize that the concentration of wealth (and economic power) that fiscal conservatism engenders is harmful to actual liberty.


I'm curious: what do you think "fiscal conservatism" actually means?
 
2012-10-22 06:24:39 PM  

Koalacaust: Kazan: fiscal conservatism is bullshiat and is what earns them the Randite moniker. nothing in libertarianism requires that shiat, and more thought out libertarian positions recognize that the concentration of wealth (and economic power) that fiscal conservatism engenders is harmful to actual liberty.

I'm curious: what do you think "fiscal conservatism" actually means?


It means "we've found this ostensibly wise and mind soundbite phrase that is just nebulous and malleable enough to keep pulling the same sh*t, and we can redefine it as we go."
 
2012-10-22 06:26:43 PM  
Something tells me that if this was easy and consequence free, they'd have done it already.
Putting things in the hands of congress as it is now, a bunch of oligarchs owned by corporations, also seems like a bad idea.

/I'm gonna nope my way right out of this, as it seems like nothing good will come of it.
 
2012-10-22 06:30:59 PM  
Fat, disingenuous old men who managed to concoct and hand down a small set of scalable hat tricks involving what they can make money do and define money as, have written a check that the entire GDP of the planet can't cash. Game over. Period. There's nothing left TO do but shake the etch a sketch and frankly, this looks like it would be a lot less violent than the other, more historically prevalent methods.
 
2012-10-22 06:31:15 PM  

way south: Something tells me that if this was easy and consequence free, they'd have done it already.
Putting things in the hands of congress as it is now, a bunch of oligarchs owned by corporations, also seems like a bad idea.

/I'm gonna nope my way right out of this, as it seems like nothing good will come of it.


Just keep it directly in the hands of corporations (as an instrument of debt to them) then.
 
2012-10-22 06:32:26 PM  

bunner: Koalacaust: Kazan: fiscal conservatism is bullshiat and is what earns them the Randite moniker. nothing in libertarianism requires that shiat, and more thought out libertarian positions recognize that the concentration of wealth (and economic power) that fiscal conservatism engenders is harmful to actual liberty.

I'm curious: what do you think "fiscal conservatism" actually means?

It means "we've found this ostensibly wise and mind soundbite phrase that is just nebulous and malleable enough to keep pulling the same sh*t, and we can redefine it as we go."


^^^ pretty much that

Koalacaust: Kazan: fiscal conservatism is bullshiat and is what earns them the Randite moniker. nothing in libertarianism requires that shiat, and more thought out libertarian positions recognize that the concentration of wealth (and economic power) that fiscal conservatism engenders is harmful to actual liberty.

I'm curious: what do you think "fiscal conservatism" actually means?


in practice: cut taxes, deregulate businesses that need regulated, cut programs that help the less advantaged, etc.

and low and behold - that's exactly the shiat the US Libertarian party and all it's followers endorse!
 
2012-10-22 06:35:56 PM  

YixilTesiphon: DerAppie: Elegy: No fractional reserve banking? Good luck getting credit....

Live within your means and you won't need credit.

Right, but how do you start a business without credit?


Get together a group of folks who can all afford to pitch in a little bit. They stay within their means, capital is raised for the venture. It's really summed up by one word I learned on Sesame Street many moons ago: cooperate.

I understand the simplicity of my example-in-a-vacuum, but... how `bout that?
 
2012-10-22 06:47:25 PM  
If the money movers haven't learned by now that they'd be better off unscrewing the pooch themselves when the obligatory endgame to all this manipulative BS they pull loops back to zero, instead of waiting until bread is 70.00 a loaf and motherf*ckers are burning sh*t down, then we might as well all go make some mud and berry face paint and fashion some spears and have at it, because there is little hope for civil order for this species, let alone an economy.
 
2012-10-22 06:49:49 PM  

Meatybrain: I spend a year and a half in economics classes thinking the best way to learn economics is to read Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds and take a lab course in building and fine-tuning bullshiat detectors.


Love the Madness of Crowds. I am reading The Perfect Swarm by Len Fisher right now and think it makes a good companion piece.
 
2012-10-22 06:51:47 PM  

Kazan: in practice: cut taxes, deregulate businesses that need regulated, cut programs that help the less advantaged, etc.


So you use it as a catch-all phrase to describe policies with which you disagree. Sort of like how Republicans cry "socialism" every time Obama does something that they don't like.

You're cheapening and discrediting a viable political sentiment by associating it with things like excessive tax cuts to the wealthy and wanton deregulation of the economy, neither of which are in any sense fiscally conservative. At least take the time to understand what the thing is before you go blaming it for all manner of problems.
 
2012-10-22 06:55:31 PM  

halB: What idiot would have their money in a bank right now?


Just for the sake of argument, where would you suggest having your money? (Unless you are not using "bank" to encompass Credit Unions as well, which is what I mostly use.)
 
2012-10-22 06:55:57 PM  
To be fair, TFA is talking about implementing this in the UK, not in the USA.
 
2012-10-22 06:57:05 PM  

slayer199: Since subby apparently thinks that anyone that disagrees with larger government and against the fed is either a Ron Paul fan or an Randian, allow me to clarify.

1. Ron Paul is not a libertarian, is not widely supported by libertarians.
2. Libertarianism is not the same as Randianism.

Back to the article. HELL NO. The IMF is farking insane. The solution to irresponsible deficit spending is to take over the private money supply? Like we're supposed to trust the government with money?

Riiiggggghhhhtttt.



YEAH! I mean, we don't get to choose who runs the banks. In fact most of the time we aren't even sure about who is making what decision. But putting that into the hands of people we get to choose, positions some of us actually have a shot of attaining ourselves, who have some level of accountability to the public is just INSANTIY!!!

You're right. We should just trust the rich guys. They're just better than the rest of us.
 
2012-10-22 06:57:16 PM  
Sadly, the primary function of politics in this country has become cheapening and discrediting the OTHER guy's sketchy ideas. "AS LONG AS YOUR TEAM WINS!" is precisely the sort of idiot's delight put forth to make moot the alleged purpose of the political process.
 
2012-10-22 06:58:47 PM  

burning_bridge: the private money supply


www.topcoder.com
 
2012-10-22 06:58:51 PM  

jigger: way south: Something tells me that if this was easy and consequence free, they'd have done it already.
Putting things in the hands of congress as it is now, a bunch of oligarchs owned by corporations, also seems like a bad idea.

/I'm gonna nope my way right out of this, as it seems like nothing good will come of it.

Just keep it directly in the hands of corporations (as an instrument of debt to them) then.


Well in the hands it's in we kind of know the problems to expect.
Changing it to different corporate hands, by way of politics, makes things less predictable.

/Better the devil you know.
 
2012-10-22 07:00:13 PM  

way south:

/Better the devil you know.


Until that prick turns on you, too.
 
2012-10-22 07:02:43 PM  

bunner: burning_bridge: the private money supply

www.topcoder.com

Sorry, that was slayer199:

 
2012-10-22 07:05:24 PM  

give me doughnuts: Elegy: DerAppie: Elegy: No fractional reserve banking? Good luck getting credit....

Live within your means and you won't need credit.

Oh really? You paid cash up front for your home? For your last car that you bought? For that next round of capital investment in your small business?

Fractional reserve banking makes credit possible, and we're not talking about "revolving door" credit like credit cards, we're talking about the sort of credit that 99% of Americans use for big ticket items.

How? You deposit 100 dollars in the bank. If, by law, I (the bank) need 10% of deposits on hand, I turn around and lend out the other 90 dollars to someone needing a mortgage at interest. Or a car. Or someone looking to expand their business. The interest on that loan then pays the interest that you accrue on your deposited savings, with some left over as a profit for the bank.

Now eliminate the fractional reserve requirements, and change the law so that I (the bank) now have to have 100% of deposits on hand. Surprise! Now no one can get credit, because I have no money to lend, instead I have to have all sit idling in my vault, by law. Good luck buying that house.

Simple math, how does it work?

What makes you think any of that couldn't happen with direct federal control of the monetary supply? You'd get your mortgage from the Federal revenue cabinet (or whatever they decided to call it), and pay them directly. Interest rates would be lower, as there is no privately-owned bank that needs to profit.


Is the flip-side; allow private banking so that they can compete for your business with lower rates?
 
2012-10-22 07:09:43 PM  

vartian: Slaxl: Or am I too cynical?

Take the money out of the hands of people that care only about money. That's progress; the rest we can figure out.


Man, I hope you're joking; on the off chance you're not, educate yourself
Link
 
2012-10-22 07:15:49 PM  
Companies used to answer their own phones. Now you get stonewalled on hold where your every grunt, sneeze and utterance is recorded. On hold, too. Gas stations used to give you free dishes. Now you pay what they ask and they make their money off of tobacco, lottery ticket sales, beer and pop. Banks used to give you calendars. Now they gank you 4.50 to use your own money from a "foreign" ATM. Politicians used to at least read their mail. Now, if you get within 30' of one, you get tazered. Stores used to hire knowledgeable sales people. Now, the warehouse is the store so find whatever crappy, cheap sorta mostly thing you wanted and get out.

Competing for business??? "We got something you need so shut the hell up and pay us and go away, no matter what we actually give you" is competing for business?

Does anything here seem to indicate the sort of behavior you'd associate with a sketchy carny game?

You know how you shift things back to a buyer's market?
 
2012-10-22 07:16:22 PM  

Koalacaust: Kazan: in practice: cut taxes, deregulate businesses that need regulated, cut programs that help the less advantaged, etc.

So you use it as a catch-all phrase to describe policies with which you disagree. Sort of like how Republicans cry "socialism" every time Obama does something that they don't like.

You're cheapening and discrediting a viable political sentiment by associating it with things like excessive tax cuts to the wealthy and wanton deregulation of the economy, neither of which are in any sense fiscally conservative. At least take the time to understand what the thing is before you go blaming it for all manner of problems.


yeah.. i'm the only that is doing that.

it is not the people doing that marketing it as "fiscal conservatism". totally not at all. [sarcasm]the republican party TOTALLY hasn't been marketing their policies as "Fiscally conservative"[/sarcasm] since before i was born



if you want to act morally superior to someone you better make sure reality doesn't contradict you bullshiat.


TL;DR the people pushing that agenda call it 'fiscal conservatism' - so fark you twatwaffle.
 
2012-10-22 07:16:29 PM  

mizchief: umad: This is an awesome idea! It would force banks to only loan money to those people that they know will pay them back. If they don't give poor people credit, then things like the housing market collapse would be impossible. I can see no downsides to this whatsoever.

Scamming poor people with high interest rates is a great way to make money, and will not go away no matter who controls the money.

Under the current system the banks have no problem letting people default since the money wasn't real to begin with and they end up with the actual property without really doing anything, while the rest of us work our asses off to either build the house or work for other bank-owned corporations hard enough to squat in the bank-owned house for 30 years.


I can attest to this as I work in the private capital sector.
 
2012-10-22 07:23:21 PM  
YOU BETTER GET A NICE HOUSE! YOU BETTER IMPROVE IT EVERY YEAR! YOU BETTER HAVE A NICER CAR IN 6 MONTHS! What's that?

You need MONEY for that stuff?

Well, you're in luck, pal, cause we make our money off of debt and we can sell you a metric f*ckton of ours at a purportedly reasonable rate.

Now you get out there and KEEP UP WITH THE JONESES'!

blog.myplainview.com
 
2012-10-22 07:25:41 PM  

Ricardo Klement: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRGGGHHHHH!
*sploosh*

Now that my head exploded, fractional reserve banking is not some magical power to conjure forth money. It is a mathematical side-effect of lending out money and accepting deposits. If I lend Bob $20, and he buys a bottle of cheap whiskey from Jack, who then asks me to hang on to the cash for him because he doesn't have pockets, and then I lend that $20 to Bill, I just created money. And I am not a bank, and I am not regulated by the feds.


No, you're still down $20. You had an extra $20 that you lent out to Bob. You had to already have it, so you didn't create it. And if Jack changes into a pair of pants with pockets and asks for his cash before either Bill or Bob pay up, you'd better have another extra $20 because now you're down $40.
 
2012-10-22 07:30:18 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Elegy: No fractional reserve banking? Good luck getting credit....

The markets would adjust to where it wouldn't matter.


ALL HAIL MARKETS! Markets we pray to thee, and put or trust in thee. You have never failed us, o markets. You are our savior, and your invisible hands guide us. For you are the rising tide that lifts all boats....

i.imgur.com
 
2012-10-22 07:36:46 PM  
"You know, when all this sh*t tanks because we essentially turned all of the real estate holdings we have notes on into debt derivatives, we're gonna have a lot of sketchy assed houses."

"So we just make a big deal out of home improvement and sell them the usual 'you don't want people to think you're not successful, do you' crapola as a motivator"

"So, they upkeep our houses out of vanity and we don't have to worry about any loss of the actual wealth value of the estate?"

"Catch up, newbie. Let the poor people deal with the vulture economy as long as they make sure we don't lose a penny."
 
2012-10-22 07:50:29 PM  
I can't believe you like money too! We should hang out!
 
2012-10-22 07:53:47 PM  

Kazan: the republican party TOTALLY hasn't been marketing their policies as "Fiscally conservative


You're right, and I blame them as much as anyone for causing the term to lose its actual meaning. I'm simply lamenting the fact that it has become synonymous with that strange and paradoxical synthesis of corporatism and minarchism which we see in today's GOP.

Kazan: fark you twatwaffle


There's no need to be upset.
 
2012-10-22 07:55:44 PM  

MacWizard: Ricardo Klement: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRGGGHHHHH!
*sploosh*

Now that my head exploded, fractional reserve banking is not some magical power to conjure forth money. It is a mathematical side-effect of lending out money and accepting deposits. If I lend Bob $20, and he buys a bottle of cheap whiskey from Jack, who then asks me to hang on to the cash for him because he doesn't have pockets, and then I lend that $20 to Bill, I just created money. And I am not a bank, and I am not regulated by the feds.

No, you're still down $20. You had an extra $20 that you lent out to Bob. You had to already have it, so you didn't create it. And if Jack changes into a pair of pants with pockets and asks for his cash before either Bill or Bob pay up, you'd better have another extra $20 because now you're down $40.


False. I did create money, exactly the same way the banks do. Well, except I don't have the 10% fractional reserve requirement. So to be like a bank, I'd have had to lend out only $18 to Bill.

That's how fractional reserve banking works. That's how it creates money. Banks don't print money. They don't create money in any other way. That's exactly what we're talking about.
 
2012-10-22 07:58:26 PM  

Elegy: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Elegy: No fractional reserve banking? Good luck getting credit....

The markets would adjust to where it wouldn't matter.

ALL HAIL MARKETS! Markets we pray to thee, and put or trust in thee. You have never failed us, o markets. You are our savior, and your invisible hands guide us. For you are the rising tide that lifts all boats....

[i.imgur.com image 202x249]


The funny thing is that fractional reserve banking is a form of government regulation that LIMITS how much money is created by the banks. With no government regulation, the de facto reserve requirement is 0%. It only goes higher if the government REGULATES the banks. So when Ron Paul asks to raise the reserve requirement to 100%, he's asking for MORE REGULATION.

The current reserve rate is 10%, but probably lowering it would create zero or near-zero money since banks will always want SOME cash on hand because otherwise customers wouldn't use them.
 
2012-10-22 08:41:16 PM  
Paying interest to private bankers on currency they print out of thin air is insane.

Since we've all been on the internet now, we know that all the currency in the US is LOANED into existence. Pay off all of the loans and there would be no money left (but you would still owe interest). This is a fact, just in case your auto-response system is saying "conspiracy theory". Look up the quote from the member of the "Fed" who said it.

The whole debt-as-money thing cannot end well.
 
2012-10-22 08:47:38 PM  
This is a really good idea, particularly the parts about getting rid of the fractional reserve and reserving money creation to the State. Oh, and Subby obviously has no clue about what libertarians actually believe.
 
2012-10-22 08:54:32 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: This is a really good idea, particularly the parts about getting rid of the fractional reserve and reserving money creation to the State. Oh, and Subby obviously has no clue about what libertarians actually believe.


They're not getting RID of fractional reserve banking. They're increasing the government regulation to 100%. If they got RID of the regulation, banks would be able to make more money (but probably wouldn't).
 
2012-10-22 08:57:55 PM  

patiodragon: Paying interest to private bankers on currency they print out of thin air is insane.

Since we've all been on the internet now, we know that all the currency in the US is LOANED into existence. Pay off all of the loans and there would be no money left (but you would still owe interest). This is a fact, just in case your auto-response system is saying "conspiracy theory". Look up the quote from the member of the "Fed" who said it.

The whole debt-as-money thing cannot end well.


This is the key to why our current monetary system is doomed. The ever expanding interest must come from real growth or its just a ballooning shell game. As the aggregate balance of service grows, it consumes more of the tangible worth being generated. Once service grows beyond the ability of tangible growth to keep pace, everyone defaults.

The house (banks) always win. Its the end-game barring any substantive change in our global monetary policy.
 
2012-10-22 09:06:00 PM  

gingerjet:

/there is a reason for that - Rand was an awful writer


No arguments there.
However, I thought she had some very good ideas on the nobility of the human spirit, what should be important in how you develop and maintain your self esteem, and the dangers of the acceptance and glorification of mediocrity. It's too bad she didn't have a better editor - though perhaps one can't write the Fountainhead AND listen to someone tell you that the book is boring and painful to read because it has several hundred pages of extraneous whiny masochism.
 
2012-10-22 09:14:00 PM  

Koalacaust: Kazan: the republican party TOTALLY hasn't been marketing their policies as "Fiscally conservative

You're right, and I blame them as much as anyone for causing the term to lose its actual meaning. I'm simply lamenting the fact that it has become synonymous with that strange and paradoxical synthesis of corporatism and minarchism which we see in today's GOP.

Kazan: fark you twatwaffle

There's no need to be upset.


dude, you claimed that i was simply using the term to refer to "anything I don't like". that's pretty farking insulting. I have every right and reason to be offended by you. In reality I was using the term to mean the things that the Republican and Libertarian Parties call "fiscal conservatism", which is but one of many different 'groupings' of fiscal and socio-economic policies that I find to be pants-on-head retarded.
 
2012-10-22 09:21:03 PM  
Might happen. Won't work.
 
2012-10-22 09:44:18 PM  
They have to be trolling, right? I know they're not the sharpest tools in the shed, but they'd have to be pants-on-head retarded to be seriously advocating this.
 
2012-10-22 09:46:20 PM  

BMFPitt: They have to be trolling, right? I know they're not the sharpest tools in the shed, but they'd have to be pants-on-head retarded to be seriously advocating this.


Read this thread. There are people who are, indeed, pants-on-head retarded.
 
2012-10-22 09:50:51 PM  
bunner

Good show.

/That is all
 
2012-10-22 09:51:32 PM  

Ricardo Klement: Read this thread. There are people who are, indeed, pants-on-head retarded.


But I presume that none of them work in positions of authority for any major international financial institution.
 
2012-10-22 10:06:08 PM  

Arkanaut: Is anyone else annoyed at the British use of "pc" instead of the % sign?


I've never really noticed that before - and I'm British.
 
2012-10-22 10:07:04 PM  

Nightsweat: Arkanaut: Is anyone else annoyed at the British use of "pc" instead of the % sign?

Yes, we should bomb them immediately.


Britain has nukes.
 
2012-10-22 10:08:55 PM  
bunner
Yeah, we can make earth bigger in a few years. You left out the "of earth" part. That was sort of the point. What do you suppose the probable time needed would be to, like, invent more money to pay that back with from, you know, earth?

I cut that part because of the multiple lines. It doesn't matter. Point is, if the total worldwide debt is let's say a quadrillion dollars and total worldwide GDP is a hundred trillion dollars, it's not like everyone has to pony up a quadrillion dollars all at once. Several tens of trillions per year for a few decades is, technically, possible. Several Latin American countries have been forced to pay back their IMF and World Bank loans like that, such as Ecuador which spent iirc 60% of its government expenditures paying back odious debt (mostly for hydroelectric dams which were built on fraudulent projections by, somewhat ironically considering TFA, IMF/WB economists- but the money-maker wasn't the electricity, but the construction and the interest on debt by ripping off some third-world shiathole).

It's fine to talk about debt, but that's not a terminal problem in itself since it can theoretically be repaid. What really matters is the austerity necessary to do so.
 
2012-10-22 10:12:29 PM  

RanDomino: bunner
Yeah, we can make earth bigger in a few years. You left out the "of earth" part. That was sort of the point. What do you suppose the probable time needed would be to, like, invent more money to pay that back with from, you know, earth?

I cut that part because of the multiple lines. It doesn't matter. Point is, if the total worldwide debt is let's say a quadrillion dollars and total worldwide GDP is a hundred trillion dollars, it's not like everyone has to pony up a quadrillion dollars all at once



One question: If THE WORLD owes a quadrillion dollars, to WHOM might we owe it?
 
2012-10-22 10:24:47 PM  

BMFPitt: Ricardo Klement: Read this thread. There are people who are, indeed, pants-on-head retarded.

But I presume that none of them work in positions of authority for any major international financial institution.


Well, you could also read Ron Paul's stuff.
 
2012-10-22 10:25:34 PM  

Amos Quito: RanDomino: bunner
Yeah, we can make earth bigger in a few years. You left out the "of earth" part. That was sort of the point. What do you suppose the probable time needed would be to, like, invent more money to pay that back with from, you know, earth?

I cut that part because of the multiple lines. It doesn't matter. Point is, if the total worldwide debt is let's say a quadrillion dollars and total worldwide GDP is a hundred trillion dollars, it's not like everyone has to pony up a quadrillion dollars all at once


One question: If THE WORLD owes a quadrillion dollars, to WHOM might we owe it?


I'm not saying it's aliens, but ...
 
2012-10-22 10:32:14 PM  
Farking Hebe bankers.
 
2012-10-22 10:34:21 PM  
Most Americans have never heard of the IMF.
 
2012-10-22 10:35:21 PM  

dryknife: Farking Hebe bankers.


I hope you're referring to this.



Otherwise you're a creep.
 
2012-10-22 10:36:39 PM  
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-10-22 10:59:12 PM  

Slaxl: flucto: jasonvatch: There is much to what you say. But, have you seen how the banks have done so much to for us?

I am not defending the Fed, but handing the money supply to Congress doesn't seem like a net upgrade. That the IMF thinks this is a good plan is not really comforting.

It does seem like we could jump out of the frying pan and into the fire. Part of me thinks 'better the devil you know is going to continue farking you over at every opportunity', rather than switch to a new method that gives control over to a body that will fark you over, you just don't know how badly yet.

Or am I too cynical?


At least with Government, IN THEORY you can vote them out. Try "voting out" or boycotting Goldman Sachs or the Federal Reserve. There is literally nothing you can do to stop corporations that you don't already do business with.
 
2012-10-22 11:43:24 PM  
It seemed to me the article only suggest we only print up the fiat currency that we can back with things like bonds that we print up out of thin air to back them now with our national central banks. The difference it seemed to me was that it would the International Monetary Fund would handle the control of cash and the holding of the bonds or assets.

It is coming at a time when countries are becoming aware they need to regain control of their central banks it seems.

Would any single country then be able to stand up and demand a sound currency?

Remember one of the basic fundamentals of all of this printing; When they counterfeit the money supply they add nothing to the pile of stuff we all possess, they are just shifting the property lines.

We used to have a saying that, "He who has the gold makes the rules". It has shifted to he that controls the press. Sort of a new world order of things.
 
2012-10-22 11:52:57 PM  

Ricardo Klement: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: This is a really good idea, particularly the parts about getting rid of the fractional reserve and reserving money creation to the State. Oh, and Subby obviously has no clue about what libertarians actually believe.

They're not getting RID of fractional reserve banking. They're increasing the government regulation to 100%. If they got RID of the regulation, banks would be able to make more money (but probably wouldn't).


I think you mis-read the article. FTFA: "Specifically, it means an assault on "fractional reserve banking". If lenders are forced to put up 100pc reserve backing for deposits, they lose the exorbitant privilege of creating money out of thin air." (bold emphasis added).

In other words, private banks can loan out ONLY money that they receive in deposits.

This proposal sounds like a first step to a "social credit" type of economy. See here.

Absolutely fascinating that the IMF would be the one to propose this.
 
2012-10-22 11:52:57 PM  
Amos Quito
One question: If THE WORLD owes a quadrillion dollars, to WHOM might we owe it?

If I owe you $10, the total debt among "us" is $10.
 
2012-10-22 11:55:35 PM  

Elegy: No fractional reserve banking? Good luck getting credit....


Remember back when there was a real banking system. People that had money were able to loan money and did.

The banking system is broken in both directions now. They don't pay any interest if you save it in a bank that comes anywhere near what we are inflating the currency at. Why would they when they can print it up at will for next to nothing.

If you have a lot of money and wanted to make loans that is also broken. How can you compete with the banks counterfeiting what they loan. Even with you money out and interest payments coming in can you ever be sure it will be enough to keep up with the inflation that is out of your hands.

They will eventually end up with every thing you have no matter where you have it.

It isn't just banking. Haven't you wondered why perfectly sound business practices and occupations can no longer keep up with the fake money presses? Nothing pays. People are staying home.
 
2012-10-23 12:30:02 AM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Ricardo Klement: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: This is a really good idea, particularly the parts about getting rid of the fractional reserve and reserving money creation to the State. Oh, and Subby obviously has no clue about what libertarians actually believe.

They're not getting RID of fractional reserve banking. They're increasing the government regulation to 100%. If they got RID of the regulation, banks would be able to make more money (but probably wouldn't).

I think you mis-read the article. FTFA: "Specifically, it means an assault on "fractional reserve banking". If lenders are forced to put up 100pc reserve backing for deposits, they lose the exorbitant privilege of creating money out of thin air." (bold emphasis added).

In other words, private banks can loan out ONLY money that they receive in deposits.

This proposal sounds like a first step to a "social credit" type of economy. See here.

Absolutely fascinating that the IMF would be the one to propose this.


"If lenders are forced to put up 100%" - ie, if the government forced them to do something the free market doesn't. With no government, there's a 0% reserve requirement. The free market would stabilize with banks keeping about a 10% reserve.

Private banks ALREADY ONLY LEND OUT MONEY IT RECEIVES IN DEPOSITS. In fact, fractional reserve banking forces them to LEND OUT LESS MONEY THAN IT RECEIVES IN DEPOSITS.
 
2012-10-23 01:15:36 AM  
The IMF recommends destroying the Fed, turning money supply over to Congress, and outlawing fractional reserve banking. This is exactly what a lot of Ron Paul followers and others of libertarian ilk have been advocating for years, actually.
 
2012-10-23 01:23:09 AM  

Silly_Sot: The IMF recommends destroying the Fed, turning money supply over to Congress, and outlawing fractional reserve banking. This is exactly what a lot of Ron Paul followers and others of libertarian ilk have been advocating for years, actually.


"Outlawing" fractional reserve banking implies that it exists only because of government interference. It doesn't. Fractional reserve banking with a 0% reserve requirement is the natural free-market state of affairs.
 
2012-10-23 02:37:21 AM  

intelligent comment below: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: This is a really good idea, particularly the parts about getting rid of the fractional reserve and reserving money creation to the State. Oh, and Subby obviously has no clue about what libertarians actually believe.


How can a libertarian sit on unemployment, wait for section 8 housing, and have a wife on disability?


Sigh. There you go again, being a Wizard. When did I ever say I was a libertarian? Citation, please. Or you could just shut the fark up and go to bed.
 
2012-10-23 02:47:02 AM  

Ricardo Klement: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Ricardo Klement: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: This is a really good idea, particularly the parts about getting rid of the fractional reserve and reserving money creation to the State. Oh, and Subby obviously has no clue about what libertarians actually believe.

They're not getting RID of fractional reserve banking. They're increasing the government regulation to 100%. If they got RID of the regulation, banks would be able to make more money (but probably wouldn't).

I think you mis-read the article. FTFA: "Specifically, it means an assault on "fractional reserve banking". If lenders are forced to put up 100pc reserve backing for deposits, they lose the exorbitant privilege of creating money out of thin air." (bold emphasis added).

In other words, private banks can loan out ONLY money that they receive in deposits.

This proposal sounds like a first step to a "social credit" type of economy. See here.

Absolutely fascinating that the IMF would be the one to propose this.

"If lenders are forced to put up 100%" - ie, if the government forced them to do something the free market doesn't. With no government, there's a 0% reserve requirement. The free market would stabilize with banks keeping about a 10% reserve.

Private banks ALREADY ONLY LEND OUT MONEY IT RECEIVES IN DEPOSITS. In fact, fractional reserve banking forces them to LEND OUT LESS MONEY THAN IT RECEIVES IN DEPOSITS.


I've become a believer in the concept that money should be a government monopoly. Giving private banks the power to essentially print money by loaning out deposits multiple times concentrates unearned wealth (the interest on the multiple loans of money that has no physical existence except as a bookkeeping entry) in the hands of the bankers.

>>>>In fact, fractional reserve banking forces them to LEND OUT LESS MONEY THAN IT RECEIVES IN DEPOSITS.

I don't understand why you say this. As I understand it. fractional reserve means the exact opposite: the bank is required to keep on reserve only a fraction of the funds lent out.

Again, look that the Wiki article on Social Credit. Or read Heinlein's lost masterpiece. Read the reviews
 
2012-10-23 02:57:20 AM  
Libertarians are slippery buggers. You can never pin down what they really believe or what makes a true libertarian. Only thing they agree on is that they are right and everyone else is wrong.
 
2012-10-23 03:23:17 AM  

BigNumber12: I'm currently reading Atlas Shrugged, so I'm getting a kick out of these comments.


You poor bastard. Do yourself a favor and skip John Galt's speech. It's 70 pages of "Work good, Taxes bad."
 
2012-10-23 03:38:11 AM  

vartian: Slaxl: Or am I too cynical?

Take the money out of the hands of people that care only about money. That's progress; the rest we can figure out.


And give it to whom? Someone who currently doesn't care only about money, but will once they get the power?
 
2012-10-23 03:42:18 AM  

RanDomino: It's fine to talk about debt, but that's not a terminal problem in itself since it can theoretically be repaid.


True. And theoretically, Mitt Romney represents ALL Americans, and not just white people who already have money.

What really matters is the austerity necessary to do so.

Mostly because people aren't about to actually cut the sh*t, tighten their belts and actually start paying for stuff, or stop replacing that stuff with new stuff on credit. The game IS rigged and the game is "create more debt." If all the IOUs in town wind up on old man Potter's desk, the movie doesn't have a happy ending.
 
2012-10-23 03:44:10 AM  

Amos Quito: One question: If THE WORLD owes a quadrillion dollars, to WHOM might we owe it?


No, the world spins around handily with or without money. We've simply written more bad checks, to ourselves, than the entire planet can cash.
 
2012-10-23 03:50:08 AM  

bunner: Amos Quito: One question: If THE WORLD owes a quadrillion dollars, to WHOM might we owe it?

No, the world spins around handily with or without money. We've simply written more bad checks, to ourselves, than the entire planet can cash.


Well said.
 
2012-10-23 03:52:01 AM  

Slaves2Darkness: nmemkha: Does anyone know how we got into this mess?

Umm...what makes you think this is a mess? US deficit funding has created the greatest amount of wealth spread to the largest amount of people in the history of the world. It has funded low tax, large military, and world domination that Caesar could only dream about. Deficit spending defeated the last of the great enemies and proved once and for all that a Republic is the best government ever. It has funded decadence, sloth, corruption that would make Caligula drool.

In short US deficit spending and the debt is the greatest thing we the people could have ever done.

The only problem we have now is convincing the retarded right that taxes must increased to reduce the deficit, so the party can continue. The retarded right are the douche bags who never pony up a couple of bucks for the beer run, so the party can continue.


Umm... no. That giant military is part of what's bankrupting us.
 
2012-10-23 03:55:33 AM  

YixilTesiphon: DerAppie: Elegy: No fractional reserve banking? Good luck getting credit....

Live within your means and you won't need credit.

Right, but how do you start a business without credit?


Sell stock to those who want to own a piece of the business. Sell bonds to people who want to loan money to the business.
 
2012-10-23 03:58:48 AM  

DrPainMD: YixilTesiphon: DerAppie: Elegy: No fractional reserve banking? Good luck getting credit....

Live within your means and you won't need credit.

Right, but how do you start a business without credit?

Sell stock to those who want to own a piece of the business. Sell bonds to people who want to loan money to the business.


Hell, you can sell stock to capitalize something that isn't even a business at all.

blog.edisonnation.com
 
2012-10-23 04:11:50 AM  

YixilTesiphon: Has poverty increased or decreased since the advent of fractional reserve banking

start of the industrial revolution?
 
2012-10-23 04:14:52 AM  

DrPainMD: YixilTesiphon: Has poverty increased or decreased since the advent of fractional reserve banking start of the industrial revolution?


Ssshhh! Supporting growth through actual wealth creation is anti-capitalist! The 1% counts on 3 things. Selective and very short memories, covetousness and fear. Making things? That's for the new slave class is China.
 
2012-10-23 04:15:25 AM  

MacWizard: Ricardo Klement: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRGGGHHHHH!
*sploosh*

Now that my head exploded, fractional reserve banking is not some magical power to conjure forth money. It is a mathematical side-effect of lending out money and accepting deposits. If I lend Bob $20, and he buys a bottle of cheap whiskey from Jack, who then asks me to hang on to the cash for him because he doesn't have pockets, and then I lend that $20 to Bill, I just created money. And I am not a bank, and I am not regulated by the feds.

No, you're still down $20. You had an extra $20 that you lent out to Bob. You had to already have it, so you didn't create it. And if Jack changes into a pair of pants with pockets and asks for his cash before either Bill or Bob pay up, you'd better have another extra $20 because now you're down $40.


Yeah, it's more like Bob wants the bottle of whiskey from the liquor store, so you get him to sign his name on a paper that he'll pay you $20 in your currency + interest, and then give him the liquor from the money that was created by the signature.
 
2012-10-23 04:24:53 AM  
Capitalism v.2.0 has but one end game. Enslave men with paper notes. Then, you own all their work and you get everything free. Period. Same reason we're waging war in the middle east. To keep oil traded in OUR IOUs.
 
2012-10-23 04:27:06 AM  

jvowles: jigger: Elegy: You paid cash up front for ... your last car that you bought?

Yes. Is it so hard to save money?

Yes. Let's assume you're an everyday guy doing an everyday job for which you are paid a bit above minimum wage. You take home $10 an hour after taxes, work a 40-hour full time week, and thus you're bringing home $400/week, for $20,800/year.

Let's remove the thought of family, here; just a bachelor. Let's assume he's living frugally but lives alone.

There's no way he can afford a decent place on that income, so assume he's sharing a place and this is his part of the rent. Chances are he needs a car, but for the sake of argument, let's say it's paid for.

$800 - rent
$ 100 - utillities (heat, electricity, water)
$ 50 - cheap prepaid phone
$ 400 - food
$ 100 - car insurance
$ 100 - gas (one tank per week)
$ 100 - misc expenses (average)
-------
$1650

If he's extraordinarily careful, never has car trouble, never has unexpected medical expenses, doesn't take any routine medication, and has no pets or family connections -- well, he's pocketing a sweet $83 per month. That's not quite $1k/ year.

In 20 years, he MIGHT have enough for a down payment on a house.


The guy needs to get a cheaper house, not heat or air condition it so much, and cut back everywhere else. Anecdotal, but a woman who spent her entire life as a low-wage maid died a few years ago and left just under a million dollars to the local university. Priorities.
 
2012-10-23 04:38:01 AM  

BMFPitt: They have to be trolling, right? I know they're not the sharpest tools in the shed, but they'd have to be pants-on-head retarded to be seriously advocating this.


proceed farker
 
2012-10-23 04:50:06 AM  

DrPainMD: jvowles: jigger: Elegy: You paid cash up front for ... your last car that you bought?

Yes. Is it so hard to save money?

Yes. Let's assume you're an everyday guy doing an everyday job for which you are paid a bit above minimum wage. You take home $10 an hour after taxes, work a 40-hour full time week, and thus you're bringing home $400/week, for $20,800/year.

Let's remove the thought of family, here; just a bachelor. Let's assume he's living frugally but lives alone.

There's no way he can afford a decent place on that income, so assume he's sharing a place and this is his part of the rent. Chances are he needs a car, but for the sake of argument, let's say it's paid for.

$800 - rent
$ 100 - utillities (heat, electricity, water)
$ 50 - cheap prepaid phone
$ 400 - food
$ 100 - car insurance
$ 100 - gas (one tank per week)
$ 100 - misc expenses (average)
-------
$1650

If he's extraordinarily careful, never has car trouble, never has unexpected medical expenses, doesn't take any routine medication, and has no pets or family connections -- well, he's pocketing a sweet $83 per month. That's not quite $1k/ year.

In 20 years, he MIGHT have enough for a down payment on a house.

The guy needs to get a cheaper house, not heat or air condition it so much, and cut back everywhere else. Anecdotal, but a woman who spent her entire life as a low-wage maid died a few years ago and left just under a million dollars to the local university. Priorities.


You understand wages haven't gone up in 40 years while costs have right? If we were at 70's purchasing power savings wouldn't be an issue the same way it is now. In 4 decades we have not only not gained any money, lost money to inflation, and have had costs sky-rocket in the same time. And it's all the black man's fault with his magical time machine.

And think of how long it would take a $10 dollar wage to get to a million dollars. In 50 years saving up all that wage without expenditure would get to a million, so I think there's more to your story than just some low-wage maid saving up her payings to a million.

And also, wtf at your "oh no there's nothing wrong with this system, even though the minimum wage goes even lower those poor plebs should just do with less. It is the word of God. Suffer I say. Do you hear me? Does that not go well with you?"
 
2012-10-23 05:03:18 AM  

This text is now purple: Arkanaut: BTW:

We return to the historical norm, before Charles II placed control of the money supply in private hands with the English Free Coinage Act of 1666.

Yeah, this isn't going to alarm any conspiracy theorists.

Didn't the zenith of the British Empire start right around 1666? Seems private control of the money supply in general worked out well for what was otherwise a backward, inhospitable little island that even the Vikings didn't particularly want.


For who? Poor people that can't care for themselves are still around, and in much greater numbers now and on all 4 corners of the world, such as the america's which used to be self-sufficient. Oh you mean rich people are richer now. Thanks for that observation.
 
2012-10-23 05:04:16 AM  
The people telling you that you just have to carry on in the face of adversity don't have to. And they are eating out of your fridge while they preach it.
 
2012-10-23 05:11:00 AM  

DerAppie: bunner: poor people tend to be related to poor people with very little venture capital handy.

You need venture capital? Do you know what rich people like? becoming even richer. Write a decent business plan and get your idea out there. If you can convince people that you can make a profit there will be someone willing to invest. Also: DerAppie. Bottom paragraph.


and for those people that were raised in a bush and shunned from western culture for a century? You know, Natives? The ones who were molested and beaten for speaking their language, fearing the educational system kept their kids out of it? You think they know what a business plan is? Do you think they could get a plane to fly them from their remote reserve 600 km to a city to present it to an investor? When he probably doesn't even know what the hell interest is?
 
2012-10-23 05:13:49 AM  

slayer199: poot_rootbeer: And why hasn't it been tried anywhere? Nowhere in the real world real enough to be compatible with libertarianism?

Because the idea of individual liberty and smaller government scares people. One only needs to look at the reactions in this thread. People WANT to be taken care of. People are fearful of the personal responsibility aspect of individual liberty. So to many, ceding individual liberty for government power is an acceptable choice.

That isn't to say government is NOT necessary. It's just that there's few limitations on the power of the Federal government at this point. People want to wave a flag for their party and say, "My Guy is different, when he gets in things will change!" The truth is that neither party returns government powers taken by their predecessor. Look at Obama's promise not to use federal resources for going after states that have legalized medical marijuana. Gitmo is still open. He's increased drone strikes. Has he been more transparent? No. I'm not just pinning this only on Obama, it's just the way our two-party system is functioning. There's very little difference between the two parties. They both increase the size and power of the federal government at the expense of individual liberty. Will Romney remove the HCRA? No.


Individual liberty? Small government? Until the taliban or Russia decides to invade your small government i'm guessing, or should it be big enough to handle the Russians? How big is that? Do you just expect countries to not invade you under good will?
 
2012-10-23 05:17:26 AM  
Governance is a business. It's mission is to serve the populace that hires it with votes and maintains it with taxes. Period. Viewing your customers as sheep to be fleeced or annoyances has been SOP for too long.
 
2012-10-23 06:58:14 AM  
This is possibly the stupidest, most dangerous thing I've heard in awhile.

Wiping out the debt? even if it were possible, it could have very server and adverse affects on the global economy.

This is the sort of economic idiocy that ruins economies.
 
2012-10-23 07:07:41 AM  

Ricardo Klement: Elegy: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Elegy: No fractional reserve banking? Good luck getting credit....

The markets would adjust to where it wouldn't matter.

ALL HAIL MARKETS! Markets we pray to thee, and put or trust in thee. You have never failed us, o markets. You are our savior, and your invisible hands guide us. For you are the rising tide that lifts all boats....

[i.imgur.com image 202x249]

The funny thing is that fractional reserve banking is a form of government regulation that LIMITS how much money is created by the banks. With no government regulation, the de facto reserve requirement is 0%. It only goes higher if the government REGULATES the banks. So when Ron Paul asks to raise the reserve requirement to 100%, he's asking for MORE REGULATION.

The current reserve rate is 10%, but probably lowering it would create zero or near-zero money since banks will always want SOME cash on hand because otherwise customers wouldn't use them.


Other countries have less stringent requirements - for decades most UK banks had around 2-3% reserves (before 2007 anyway, I presume they have been holding more since then), so it would seem reasonable to assume that if the Federal government reduced the restrictions then the part of the money supply that comes from US regulated banks would grow by around 2-5 times, especially as removing the restrictions and the growth in the money supply would cause a short term boom so they would be encouraged to grow the money supply as much as they can to increase their profits. Presumably their would be another big bust once the growth in credit is tapped out.
 
2012-10-23 07:16:02 AM  

Rindred: Credit Default Swaps = ~$1.5 Quadrillion


Kind of a meaningless number, it doesn't factor in offsetting liabilities - if Bank A sells $100m in CDS coverage on company Z for $2m per year, and then Bank B decides to sell $100m in CDS coverage on Z for $1.95m per year, Bank A could buy the coverage from Bank B (effectively reinsuring the liability), pocket $50k per year with no risk*. According to your math their is now $200m of CDS liability outstanding. Repeat this process using computers checking millions of potential transactions a second and arbitraging all the Banks assets over and over again, and you can create any arbitary headline number of outstanding liabilities, with no actual increase in the real liabilities outstanding (just a lot of confusion and mess if one of the banks involved goes bankrupt in the middle of the market unwinding). 

*sort of
 
2012-10-23 07:17:18 AM  
Maybe if they paid their capital gains taxes.

Maybe if we went after them and charged them enough to make some sort of a profit on the wealth they are wrenching from us.
 
2012-10-23 07:19:17 AM  

BMFPitt: Ricardo Klement: Read this thread. There are people who are, indeed, pants-on-head retarded.

But I presume that none of them work in positions of authority for any major international financial institution.


You mean people like Alan Greenspan never held any position of authority in an economic or financial capacity?
 
2012-10-23 07:29:38 AM  

xria: You mean people like Alan Greenspan never held any position of authority in an economic or financial capacity?


Al? Al the "oops, sh*t, sorry" guy?
 
2012-10-23 07:31:00 AM  

viscountalpha: This is the sort of economic idiocy that ruins economies.


Depends on for whom and for how long. Much similar to what's already ruining economies.
 
2012-10-23 07:46:34 AM  

PDid: Libertarians are slippery buggers. You can never pin down what they really believe or what makes a true libertarian.


Do you believe that the other broad political labels accurately predict the beliefs of any given member of a labeled group?

links136: BMFPitt: They have to be trolling, right? I know they're not the sharpest tools in the shed, but they'd have to be pants-on-head retarded to be seriously advocating this.

proceed farker


Usually I would tag you as an Economic Illiterate based on your posts, but you seem to have volunteered for the rare Pants on Head Retarded. Congrats!
 
2012-10-23 07:53:52 AM  
This is so cute, you all are acting like this would ever happen.
 
2012-10-23 08:23:43 AM  

bunner: xria: You mean people like Alan Greenspan never held any position of authority in an economic or financial capacity?

Al? Al the "oops, sh*t, sorry" guy?


i1121.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-23 08:40:07 AM  
I am always astounded at the depth of acuity in the filed of economics displayed on these pages. And yet, the people who actually get paid to tut tut and harrumph about this sh*t have, so far, gotten us - here.
 
2012-10-23 08:40:46 AM  
That was sarcasm, btw.
 
2012-10-23 08:43:25 AM  

links136: Individual liberty? Small government? Until the taliban or Russia decides to invade your small government i'm guessing, or should it be big enough to handle the Russians? How big is that? Do you just expect countries to not invade you under good will?


Apparently you decided to jump in and ignore my earlier point about the proper role of government being to protect and defend individual liberty...which means protecting our shores.
 
2012-10-23 08:45:18 AM  

Kazan: dude, you claimed that i was simply using the term to refer to "anything I don't like". that's pretty farking insulting. I have every right and reason to be offended by you. In reality I was using the term to mean the things that the Republican and Libertarian Parties call "fiscal conservatism", which is but one of many different 'groupings' of fiscal and socio-economic policies that I find to be pants-on-head retarded.


Stop comparing the libertarian party and the GOP. The GOP's brand of fiscal conservatism is nothing more than corporate cronyism. Libertarians want to shrink the size and scope of the government...something the GOP has no interest in doing.
 
2012-10-23 09:03:11 AM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy:

>>>>In fact, fractional reserve banking forces them to LEND OUT LESS MONEY THAN IT RECEIVES IN DEPOSITS.

I don't understand why you say this. As I understand it. fractional reserve means t ...


Here's how it works:

I deposit $100, the bank can now lend out $90. Bob borrows $90, buys beer at the 7-11. The 7-11 deposits the money, and now the bank can lend out $81. Bill borrows it, and buys some pay-per-view porn because he's never heard of the Inteernet. The cable company deposits the $81, and the bank can now lend out $72.90, which it lends to Mary so she can buy a power drill and stud-finder for some home improvements. Home Depot deposits the $72.90, and now the bank can lend out $65.61.

So, the bank has $343.90 in deposits and has lent out $243.90 with another $65.61 available for total loanable funds of $309.51, which leaves them, in reserve, $34.39, which is 10% of the amounts deposited.

Note that the economy has a lot more than $100 in it, so money was created. But the bank itself lent out less money than it took in.
 
2012-10-23 09:15:00 AM  

xria: Other countries have less stringent requirements - for decades most UK banks had around 2-3% reserves (before 2007 anyway, I presume they have been holding more since then), so it would seem reasonable to assume that if the Federal government reduced the restrictions then the part of the money supply that comes from US regulated banks would grow by around 2-5 times, especially as removing the restrictions and the growth in the money supply would cause a short term boom so they would be encouraged to grow the money supply as much as they can to increase their profits. Presumably their would be another big bust once the growth in credit is tapped out.


I couldn't tell you what British banks would do or did do, but I'd be surprised if any bankers felt comfortable actually meeting that low reserve requirement. I'd be interested in finding out, though, as that would be interesting. (After all, there are highways with speed limits of 85 mph, but that doesn't mean most people go that fast on them.)
 
2012-10-23 09:18:30 AM  

slayer199: Kazan: dude, you claimed that i was simply using the term to refer to "anything I don't like". that's pretty farking insulting. I have every right and reason to be offended by you. In reality I was using the term to mean the things that the Republican and Libertarian Parties call "fiscal conservatism", which is but one of many different 'groupings' of fiscal and socio-economic policies that I find to be pants-on-head retarded.

Stop comparing the libertarian party and the GOP. The GOP's brand of fiscal conservatism is nothing more than corporate cronyism. Libertarians want to shrink the size and scope of the government...something the GOP has no interest in doing.


dude the libertarian party and the GOP economic platforms are virtually indistinguishable. as much as you tell yourself they're not - to an external observer (ie someone not a member of either) they are virtually identical. the claimed justifications vary a little bit, but the actual policies are largely the same.
 
2012-10-23 11:00:58 AM  

Kazan: slayer199: Uh, no. Ron Paul is supported by libertarian-leaning Republicans, not Libertarians. I don't know any Libertarians that support Ron Paul. He's a Republican with some libertarian-leaning ideas....

almost every farking Libertarian i have ever met is just a randite republican embarassed to call themselves republican.

there are almost not "little l" libertarians in the united states. which you're trying to claim to be. and quite frankly i don't buy what you're selling based on your posting history.


I've been a member of the Libertarian party from the very first election I could vote. I believe the only legitimate government is defensive, as argued by all the classically liberal philosophers. To me, this means health care is rightful government, as there is no magical cutoff to the size of organisms where defense is legitimate. It also is universal and obeys an economics of scale, exactly as Locke, von Mises, and others argue for military and police. I'm also under the belief this means ecological defense and similar. Also, because of my strong belief in property rights, I believe that something like affirmative action is important. I don't think you steal all income from a group, preventing any accumulation of group wealth, and then wipe your hands and say "sorry, sins if the father and all". If companies could do that, we'd recognize immediately it was legitimizing wholesale theft.
 
2012-10-23 11:29:22 AM  

intelligent comment below: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Sigh. There you go again, being a Wizard. When did I ever say I was a libertarian? Citation, please. Or you could just shut the fark up and go to bed.

So you finally admit you troll a political view just to get replies? At least you finally admitted you're nothing but an idiot hack and a liar


You must be tired and overheated from all your illogical leaping around and jumping to conclusions. Would you like some warm milk and cookies before bedi?
 
2012-10-23 11:44:03 AM  

Ricardo Klement: Just Another OC Homeless Guy:

>>>>In fact, fractional reserve banking forces them to LEND OUT LESS MONEY THAN IT RECEIVES IN DEPOSITS.

I don't understand why you say this. As I understand it. fractional reserve means t ...

Here's how it works:

I deposit $100, the bank can now lend out $90. Bob borrows $90, buys beer at the 7-11. The 7-11 deposits the money, and now the bank can lend out $81. Bill borrows it, and buys some pay-per-view porn because he's never heard of the Inteernet. The cable company deposits the $81, and the bank can now lend out $72.90, which it lends to Mary so she can buy a power drill and stud-finder for some home improvements. Home Depot deposits the $72.90, and now the bank can lend out $65.61.

So, the bank has $343.90 in deposits and has lent out $243.90 with another $65.61 available for total loanable funds of $309.51, which leaves them, in reserve, $34.39, which is 10% of the amounts deposited.

Note that the economy has a lot more than $100 in it, so money was created. But the bank itself lent out less money than it took in.


OK, I get what you are saying.
 
2012-10-23 09:48:32 PM  

Kazan: dude the libertarian party and the GOP economic platforms are virtually indistinguishable. as much as you tell yourself they're not - to an external observer (ie someone not a member of either) they are virtually identical. the claimed justifications vary a little bit, but the actual policies are largely the same.


Keep telling yourself that.
 
2012-10-24 12:43:36 AM  
im a libertarian and im not a big fan of Ron Paul. but then im an atypical libertarian.
 
2012-10-24 06:58:29 AM  
Ron Paul isn't libertarian. He's just the closest thing to libertarian that exists in a major political party. (Well, now there's Rand.)
 
2012-10-24 08:05:26 AM  
The reason the libertarian party will never amount to a poddling, willy nilly gosh darn is that it largely consists of a handful of people whose mantra is "Well, *I* am a Libertarian, these other posers are full of crap".
 
2012-10-24 08:22:43 AM  

bunner: The reason the libertarian party will never amount to a poddling, willy nilly gosh darn is that it largely consists of a handful of people whose mantra is "Well, *I* am a Libertarian, these other posers are full of crap".


It helps that their absolutism is a turn-off. The Cato Institute once slammed the NRA for not being uncompromising enough.
 
2012-10-24 11:38:06 AM  

ex0du5: Kazan: slayer199: Uh, no. Ron Paul is supported by libertarian-leaning Republicans, not Libertarians. I don't know any Libertarians that support Ron Paul. He's a Republican with some libertarian-leaning ideas....

almost every farking Libertarian i have ever met is just a randite republican embarassed to call themselves republican.

there are almost not "little l" libertarians in the united states. which you're trying to claim to be. and quite frankly i don't buy what you're selling based on your posting history.

I've been a member of the Libertarian party from the very first election I could vote. I believe the only legitimate government is defensive, as argued by all the classically liberal philosophers. To me, this means health care is rightful government, as there is no magical cutoff to the size of organisms where defense is legitimate. It also is universal and obeys an economics of scale, exactly as Locke, von Mises, and others argue for military and police. I'm also under the belief this means ecological defense and similar. Also, because of my strong belief in property rights, I believe that something like affirmative action is important. I don't think you steal all income from a group, preventing any accumulation of group wealth, and then wipe your hands and say "sorry, sins if the father and all". If companies could do that, we'd recognize immediately it was legitimizing wholesale theft.


then you're supporting the wrong party. because you're a real libertarian, and you're supporting randites.

slayer199: Kazan: dude the libertarian party and the GOP economic platforms are virtually indistinguishable. as much as you tell yourself they're not - to an external observer (ie someone not a member of either) they are virtually identical. the claimed justifications vary a little bit, but the actual policies are largely the same.

Keep telling yourself that.


i don't need to, you however need to keep denying it because everyone NOT a supporter of the libertarian party believes it.
 
2012-10-25 12:08:01 AM  
Actually, I would think this idea to have potential, so long as it isn't butchered during implementation.
 
2012-10-25 03:26:23 AM  

bunner: Any time somebody gets all squinty and eye roll-y and "oh, my dear boy, harrumph"


images3.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2012-10-25 03:39:33 AM  
I thought it somewhat a enlightening that the History Channel's "The Men Who Built America" was a who's who of douchebags from the people profiled to the cameo commentators.
 
2012-10-25 10:46:13 AM  

Kazan: i don't need to, you however need to keep denying it because everyone NOT a supporter of the libertarian party believes it.


You again miss the point. The GOP and LP might say "fiscal conservative" but they're vastly different in theory and in practice.
 
2012-10-25 04:09:02 PM  

slayer199: The GOP and LP might say "fiscal conservative" but they're vastly different in theory and in practice.


no, they're not. not to an external observer.
 
Displayed 388 of 388 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report