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  
•       •       •

25338 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 388 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

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