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
    More: Unlikely, Atlas Shrugged, Ron Paul, International Monetary Fund, fiat moneys, intrinsic value, types of business, fractional reserve, money creation  
•       •       •

25351 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Oct 2012 at 1:10 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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 38 of 388 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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