For or Against Usury

Login or register to post comments Last Post 17110 reads   120 posts
Viewing 10 posts - 61 through 70 (of 120 total)
  • Tue, Feb 02, 2010 - 02:56am

    #61
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1616

    count placeholder

    Re: For or Against Usury

rhare wrote:

“[Larry] I see your passion to End the Fed, but you seem to want to take the power away  from one government sponsored thief and create another government sponsored thief.  Why not actually let the free market work.”

Whoever controls and creates money, also controls all markets.  By contract, the private Federal Reserve legally manipulates markets through the New York Fed’s “Plunge Protection Team” (PPT).  This is done independently and without any accountability.  Even without the PPT, the Fed’s money making monopoly (literally) gives them all financial power.  President Woodrow Wilson (signed the Federal Reserve Act) explained the problem:

“A great industrial nation is controlled by it’s system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the world– no longer a government of free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men.”

In your post you said that we would move the creation and control of money “from one government sponsored thief and create another government sponsored thief.”  I don’t think it has to be that way and I would suggest that historically, the nation has done much better when holding it’s financial sovereign power.  Benjamin Franklin’s Pennsylvania script and Lincoln’s greenbacks are great examples of success.

I don’t think we have ever harnessed the full potential of economic sovereignty.  Lincoln explained the potential:

“The government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the government and the buying power of consumers. 

The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of government, but it is the government’s greatest creative opportunity. 

The financing of all public enterprise, and the conduct of the treasury will become matters of practical administration.  Money will cease to be master and will then become servant of humanity.”

Larry

  • Tue, Feb 02, 2010 - 04:18am

    #62
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1616

    count placeholder

    Re: For or Against Usury

 

[quote=DrKrbyLuv]

I agree that any charges beyond administrative fees in creating money is a tax.  And if it is charged as interest from private banks, it is usury.

If the government were to add interest charges to money they create, it would be a tax and could have some redeeming benefits if wisely spent to serve the people.  Banks charge interest on new money even though it was never theirs.  They dispense new money because they hold a monopoly to do so, not because they earn it. 

[/quote]

I agree with this.

[quote=DrKrbyLuv]

Borrowers should collateralize all loans and if it is government doing the borrowing, it must be backed by new tangible assets.  While I would have the Treasury create all new money, I would not allow the Federal government to issue money at their discretion.  I would de-centralize the system by putting private banks and states as the issuers of new money. 

[/quote]

I think I agree with rhare on this point.  Your poposal just looks so fatally flawed to me that it seems like you would just be trading one set of masters for another.  However, I know you are a smart guy and have thought about this more than I have so I will try and keep an open mind on this issue.

[quote=DrKrbyLuv]

Here are some suggestions that I think would work very well in an alternative system (fire the Fed):

  1. All new money created by the Federal Government through the Treasury
  2. Almost all new money to be issued by private concerns and state government; the Federal Government should issue (spent into the economy debt free) very little money as a percentage
  3. Private banks would continue under a new model that would require that they borrow or buy (issuance fee) all new money from the Treasury (revenue stream to eliminate income and employment taxes)
    • The Treasury could charge banks an issuance fee, and they could profitably lend money based services provided (credit application, collections, etc.)
    • Interest could be charged by the Treasury and passed on to borrowers by private banks – this might be needed to make the transition easier as it is closer to the current model (in the long run I prefer issuance fees shown above)
  4. States would be free to charter banks to provide interest and debt free money for approved infrastructure projects that benefit the people and their commerce (for example, transportation systems or hydro electric power)
  5. State chartered banks could provide interest free money for approved initiatives (for example, decreasing home and building energy use by 50% or providing funding to get people off the electrical grid)

Sorry for such a rough overview, there would of course be more details. 

Larry

[/quote]

Some questions

  1. If states could create and spend money on their own “approved” infrastructure projects, what constraints would there be on this power? 
  2. Wouldn’t contruction workers and teachers unions just advocate near infinite spending on infrastructure and school construction?
  3. Would all the money be fungible across all states?  For example, would Wisconsin residents be forced to sell their goods and services for money that was excessively created for the benefit of another nearby state?
  4. Wouldn’t this sort of money creation quickly run into a commons problem?  Each state would be better off building excessive amount of infrastructure but to the detriment of the union.
  5. Without a proper pricing mechanism on construction capital, how can proper cost / benefit analysis be done on projects?

What will keep this from QUICKLY devolving into a Zimbabwe like spiral.  Is there some competition, market forces, legal constraints that I am missing?

  • Tue, Feb 02, 2010 - 04:32am

    #63
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1616

    count placeholder

    Re: For or Against Usury

The belief that we have a free market is as about as rediculous as saying that its our money.  I do understand we’ve all been told these enourmous lies, but the simple truth is the banking system owns and controls either directly or indirectly the markets, prices, and availablty of all goods and services because they own and control 100% of the money in circulation, and at any given point in time can dry up the money supply and completely shut the system down, and in the process transfer all of the real wealth over to a few private hands.

 

  • Tue, Feb 02, 2010 - 04:43am

    #65
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1616

    count placeholder

    Re: For or Against Usury

[quote=rhare]

So now on to the second part, “100% of the money in our system is created by an extension of credit”, which is not true.  Now I will give you that the vast majority of money is an extension of credt, originating from the Federal Reserve then via Fractional Reserve banking.  There is some base money in the system that is not credit based, a very small portion equivalent to all the money that was in circulation prior to the founding of the FED, and it was backed by gold and silver.  So how much “base money” that is not credit is out there?  Well if we look that the value of the dollar has declined 98%  (purchasing power), then that would indicate 1/50 of the current money in the system.  However, I suspect that it is a much, much smaller percentage and we just haven’t see the purchasing power drop to a representative valuation due to other factors such as use as the reserve currency.

[/quote]

rhare,

I think I am in about 95% agreement with most of your posts because you, unlike some of the others here, are primarily concerned with liberty and freedom.  With that being said, I do think you are under valuing the concerns others have expressed over debt based money.  If there was some base money in the system when that FED started, 80+ years of interest charges have surely eaten it all up many times over by now.  As strabes states, this should really be looked at as a closed system and what is left is only money that is created with interest and therefore needs to continually grow.

As you point out, with rates near zero, those interest charges are lower than their historical averages.  However the near zero rate is only on interbank lending.  Loans to end users are still several percent which means the money supply will need reasonable growth just to service all the outstanding debt.  Alternatively, I guess if you are less concerned about the fairness of the system, you won’t mind if some loans go into default which should free up some money so that the remaining loans can be serviced.

  • Tue, Feb 02, 2010 - 04:44am

    #64
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1616

    count placeholder

    Re: For or Against Usury

If states could create and spend money on their own “approved” infrastructure projects, what constraints would there be on this power?

This all depends on what the state law stipulates.  States in and of themselves cannot create money though.  That is prohibited in the U.S. Constitution BUT state chartered banks (the exact same ones we have now) can and do create money.  All we would have to do is pass a law requiring them to create money by spending, instead of lending.

Wouldn’t contruction workers and teachers unions just advocate near infinite spending on infrastructure and school construction?

The newly created money wouldn’t be able to move into circulation any faster than the production.

Would all the money be fungible across all states?  For example, would Wisconsin residents be forced to sell their goods and services for money that was excessively created for the benefit of another nearby state?

How would that be any different than what is going on right now?  I’ve yet to hear about anyone saying something to the effect of where did that money come from…..

Wouldn’t this sort of money creation quickly run into a commons problem?  Each state would be better off building excessive amount of infrastructure but to the detriment of the union.

And this is why we have to be careful in writing laws like this.  In the law, it must be written that the people at the local level decide what infrastructure projects are to be built because if they want them built then they wouldn’t be excessive to them if it is something they needed.

Without a proper pricing mechanism on construction capital, how can proper cost / benefit analysis be done on projects?

Thankfully, all of those mechnisms currently exsist and are being utilized every day.

  • Tue, Feb 02, 2010 - 04:56am

    #66
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1616

    count placeholder

    Re: For or Against Usury

 

 

rhare wrote:

 

So now on to the second part, “100% of the money in our system is created by an extension of credit”, which is not true.  Now I will give you that the vast majority of money is an extension of credt, originating from the Federal Reserve then via Fractional Reserve banking.  There is some base money in the system that is not credit based, a very small portion equivalent to all the money that was in circulation prior to the founding of the FED, and it was backed by gold and silver.  So how much “base money” that is not credit is out there?  Well if we look that the value of the dollar has declined 98%  (purchasing power), then that would indicate 1/50 of the current money in the system.  However, I suspect that it is a much, much smaller percentage and we just haven’t see the purchasing power drop to a representative valuation due to other factors such as use as the reserve currency.

I’m sorry but this is just not a true statement.

100% of the money we have in circulation only came into exsistance through an extention of credit by a private commercial bank.  There is no money until somebody borrows it.  Also the vast majority of the money does NOT originate from the federal reserve.  Everything I’ve read is that the fed is the “lender of LAST resort”.  The bulk of the money supply is created over at your local banks on your street corners every time they issue a new loan.

Gold has been de-monetized in 1933/34 and hasn’t had any relationship to the dollar, debt, or money since.  There is zero “base money” out there that is not a form of credit.  Not even one dollar.  Robert H. Hemphill couldn’t have made this more clear. 

The reason we have a loss in purchasing power is because the interest load that is being put on businesses is massive, and that is what forces them to raise their prices.

I understand the banking system pumps out a lot of lies all the time, but we really have to start to accept the fact that we have been lied to…..a lot and really learn to question everything that we’ve been told about the way in which the monetary system affects our lives.

  • Tue, Feb 02, 2010 - 07:54am

    #67
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1616

    count placeholder

    Re: For or Against Usury

Thomas Hedin wrote:

100% of the money we have in circulation only came into exsistance through an extention of credit by a private commercial bank.  There is no money until somebody borrows it.  Also the vast majority of the money does NOT originate from the federal reserve.  Everything I’ve read is that the fed is the “lender of LAST resort”.  The bulk of the money supply is created over at your local banks on your street corners every time they issue a new loan.

What do you think happened to all the money that existed prior to the Federal Reserve creation in 1913?  That money was not loaned into existance.  So all money up until that time was debt free.  Also, any time a loan goes bad, all that money is now debt free and in the system.  So lately we have been adding money to the system at a phenominal rate.  We then have all the deficit spending by the government, which is essentially a permanent loan (since it can never be paid back), that is also now in the system.  Then you have the Fed with it’s quantative easing, which is directly putting money into the system by buying treasuries directly that like all the other treasuries that can’t be paid back.

Gold has been de-monetized in 1933/34 and hasn’t had any relationship to the dollar, debt, or money since.  There is zero “base money” out there that is not a form of credit.  Not even one dollar.  Robert H. Hemphill couldn’t have made this more clear.

Again, all the money that used to be backed by gold is still in the system.  The fact that you can’t actually redeem it for gold/silver doesn’t mean it just disappeared.  It’s all there.

The reason we have a loss in purchasing power is because the interest load that is being put on businesses is massive, and that is what forces them to raise their prices.

No, the loss of purchasing power is because the supply of money is going up faster than the productive resources of the economy.  As you have more money in circulation, it becomes worth less, so prices go up. Interest on businesses is not that bad

I understand the banking system pumps out a lot of lies all the time, but we really have to start to accept the fact that we have been lied to…..a lot and really learn to question everything that we’ve been told about the way in which the monetary system affects our lives.

I don’t disagree with this.  The problem is we are being told look at the EVIL banks and EVIL interest and let government help get us out of the mess.  The vast majority of banks are not the problem. The problem is we have a government via the Federal Reserve manipulating interest rates for political gain and the USD being treated as an unending credit card for the federal government and their crony friends on wall street.

As you point out, with rates near zero, those interest charges are lower than their historical averages.  However the near zero rate is only on interbank lending.  Loans to end users are still several percent which means the money supply will need reasonable growth just to service all the outstanding debt. 

Yes, but it influences all other interest rates.  And they are all at historic lows.  5% for a home loan, 1-3% for a car loan.  That’s insane.  Interest  rates do not reflect risk or loss of use of the funds for other uses. The market should be setting interest rates, not the government or the Fed.

Alternatively, I guess if you are less concerned about the fairness of the system, you won’t mind if some loans go into default which should free up some money so that the remaining loans can be serviced.

I don’t care if the system is fair.  Fairness is not an attribute in a monetary system.  Non manipulatable, and consistant with regards to interest (ie. set by the market) is what I want in money.  Yes, many many many loans should default.  We purchased things we can never afford, have no means of production to pay back.  They have to default.  The only question are you going to have them default via non-payment or inflation?

The belief that we have a free market is as about as rediculous as saying that its our money.

I agree completely, we don’t have free markets and haven’t for a long time.  But it’s not because we have banks or FRB.  It’s because we have interference by government and the FED.

and in the process transfer all of the real wealth over to a few private hands.

Whom?  I would really like to know who you think is going to end up owning all the wealth? Also, what wealth? At least in the US we have few productive assets, crumbling infrastructure and way too many cars, plasma screens, houses, commercial real estate, etc.  What is someone going to get?  Few natural resources remain, little production?  I think many that are considered wealthy are going to get whacked just like Dr. Martenson said.  When the rush to buy productive hard assets sets in, few are going to make it through the door.  We have an illusion of wealth but little actual wealth and that is what is going to be revealed by all of this.

Another thing to realize is that that wealth transfer up to now has been from the rest of the world to the citizens of the US through our currency.  If you happen to be in the US be very thankful that we have been the beneficiaries of all the wealth transfer.  

With that being said, I do think you are under valuing the concerns others have expressed over debt based money.

I have been thinking a lot about this.  I’m a hard advocate of a commodity backed currency.  I just said I’m not sure a Fractional Reserve Banking system can’t work (note – not government sponsored, controlled, enforced via law).  I just know that it isn’t working now because we can clearly see the manipulation of the system.  I also don’t mind having a non-debt based system (hard currency fits that).  What I don’t support is all the talk about having a government issued money with free loans for those deemed worthy by a bueracracy.  It’s fantasy because that is exactly what we have now and it doesn’t work.  You have to let the market (read this as people and their individual preferences) decide what is right.  Any system that doesn’t put the power into the individual will end up with exactly what we have now.

Another thing I want to emphasis, is banks are not some evil alien entity that is taking over the world?  Who do you think owns a bank?  If we look at statistics for some of the banks:

  • BofA, 0.1% insiders, 63% institutions.
  • Goldman Sacks, 5% insiders, 75% institutions
  • Citigroup: 0.3% insiders, 27% institutions.

So only a very small portion for insiders, so most of the money earned by a bank gets distributed to shareholders (note I don’t know why shareholders aren’t raising a fit for executive salary).  So it goes to mutual funds, 401Ks, individual shareholders, etc.  No evil ruleing wealthy class listed anywhere!  Yes there are executives and political leaders skimming money from the system, but it’s a small part.  So when you curse those evil people benefiting from this theft, you need to check your 401K, IRA, mutual fund.

The final thought that I hope we all get out of this discussion is “Wealth is not money”.  Money is a means to conviently exchange one form of wealth for another.

 

  • Tue, Feb 02, 2010 - 08:37am

    #68
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1616

    count placeholder

    Re: For or Against Usury

[quote]Another thing I want to emphasis, is banks are not some evil alien entity that is taking over the world?  Who do you think owns a bank?  If we look at statistics for some of the banks:

  • BofA, 0.1% insiders, 63% institutions.
  • Goldman Sacks, 5% insiders, 75% institutions
  • Citigroup: 0.3% insiders, 27% institutions.

So only a very small portion for insiders, so most of the money earned by a bank gets distributed to shareholders[/quote]

hi rhare, just a few thoughts on this part of your post…

– Don’t forget the higher level as well when you say “the banks.”  You have to include the central banking network, IMF, World Bank, BIS.  They indeed are taking over.  The bond market, the controlling mechanism of the central banks and their cartel banks, rules the world.  Governments and politicians are hostage to it, unless they develop a solid plan to replace their debt-based money in a way that doesn’t cause collapse.  Asia possibly now has the power to trump it if it so desires…we shall see over the next couple decades.

– The money you’re talking about here is the electronic digits being passed around brokerage accounts that fool everybody into thinking they’re “owners.”  That’s irrelevant. The key is control.  Who controls the private banks?  Buy as many shares as you want of JPM Chase and I guarantee Jamie Dimon will never answer your call.  But when a Rockefeller representative gives him a buzz, he snaps to, listens, and unlike every other caller who he might actually talk to, he does what he’s told.  After all, he serves at their pleasure, and he benefits from their strategic work behind the scenes which got the government to hand over WAMU to him almost for free. 

– And the issue isn’t insiders.  Those are puppet board members and operating officials of the banks like Dimon and Blankfein.  They are basically bourgeois lackeys chasing a paycheck, front men for the controllers behind the scenes.  The secret to long-term capital ownership and control is hiding behind corporate logos and operating front men so public scrutiny never reaches your level.  The controllers only care about the banks as their laundering machine.  They’re happy to let Lehman and others crumble when they don’t need them anymore. 

  • Tue, Feb 02, 2010 - 09:04am

    #69
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1616

    count placeholder

    Re: For or Against Usury

What do you think happened to all the money that existed prior to the Federal Reserve creation in 1913?  That money was not loaned into existance.  So all money up until that time was debt free.

The vast bulk majority of the money was interest bearing bank credit.  After the founders setup a taxing system the very first thing they did was create a central bank to create money as interest bearing debt.  This practice of creating debt money exsisted long before the united states was formed.  There may be a few gold notes still floating around but they are not circulated as money anymore since they are only in the hands of collectors and are not used as money.

“The first bank, in what beame the United States, was the Massachusetts Land Bank in 1721.  The land owners created a bank where they could mortgage their land and receive a letter of credit that they could use as their medium of exchange.  The new land bank emited 50,000 pounds of old tenor (paper credit).”  Modern Money Secrets page 113 The History of banking in the United States.

Before this country was even formed the con-men known as bankers were getting their practice of creating the meduim of exchange as interest bearing loans started.

Also, any time a loan goes bad, all that money is now debt free and in the system.

That’s not true either, because when a loan goes bad, that bank has to take and use it’s income and apply it to the remaining principle balance.  When the banks do this, and use their income to write off the loss on those bad loans that money gets destroyed and written off the books.  When there is massive foreclosers it actually dries up the money supply even faster.  This is the process in which a bank becomes insolvent, because when their income fails to meet their outgo (loans going bad) they are in the negative and hence, they get put out of business and swallowed up by the larger banks who actually get paid to take those bad banks.  They get paid by the FDIC.  I know this for a fact because I had the FDIC head guy tell this to me personally at a senate banking hearing up here in Minnesota.

Again, all the money that used to be backed by gold is still in the system.  The fact that you can’t actually redeem it for gold/silver doesn’t mean it just disappeared.  It’s all there.

“In 1933, while this country was on a gold coin standard, our money supply was $20 billion, while our total gold stack was only $4 billion.” Paul M Horvitz Director of Research FDIC.

Can you please help me understand how 20 billion of interest bearing debt is going to help solve America’s collective financial problem?  Plus add to that the bulk of that money has been used to extinguish debts I doubt if there is much if any of that money still circulating today.

No, the loss of purchasing power is because the supply of money is going up faster than the productive resources of the economy.  As you have more money in circulation, it becomes worth less, so prices go up. Interest on businesses is not that bad

Have you ever owned and operated a business?

I don’t disagree with this.  The problem is we are being told look at the EVIL banks and EVIL interest and let government help get us out of the mess.  The vast majority of banks are not the problem. The problem is we have a government via the Federal Reserve manipulating interest rates for political gain and the USD being treated as an unending credit card for the federal government and their crony friends on wall street.

How can the government help us out of this mess when the government creates no money what so ever?  Do you think higher or lower interest rates good or bad?  The end result is always the same.  Once time and interest kick in the debt grows but the money supply does not.  Interest always increases your cost of doing business, and when all money is created as an interest bearing debt in time, the debt will become so large that the interest alone will exceed the total consumer income.

I agree completely, we don’t have free markets and haven’t for a long time.  But it’s not because we have banks or FRB.  It’s because we have interference by government and the FED.

Can you explain how the govnernment interferes with the money supply when the government creates no money?  I’m curious why you blame the government so hard for our financial mess when the govnernment creates no money, though they should.  Have you ever considered the possiblility that the biggest fear the banking system has is losing their monopoly over the creation of the medium of exchange as interest bearing loans if the people put enough collective pressure on their govnerment to start creating debt free, final payment into the system so the people could actually get out of debt to the banking system and still have a medium of exchange, and once again be able to enjoy property ownership?

Whom?  I would really like to know who you think is going to end up owning all the wealth?

The banking system because they have a mortgage on all the property in the united states.

I have been thinking a lot about this.  I’m a hard advocate of a commodity backed currency.  I just said I’m not sure a Fractional Reserve Banking system can’t work (note – not government sponsored, controlled, enforced via law).

Lets go with your idea of a commdity backed currency.  We’ll use precious metals. 

Where is the gold and silver going to come from?

How much are you going to need to make it work as a general meduim of exchange?

How will it be put into circulation?

Wouldn’t it be true that if it was all loaned into circulation that as soon as time and interest kicked in the debt would grow greater than the money supply leaving us in the exact same situation we are in today?  An unpayable interest bearing debt?

 

If a fractional reserve banking system can be sustainable, can you please answer the next very simple question.

If all the money is going to be created as interest bearing loans where will the money come from to pay the interest?

I just know that it isn’t working now because we can clearly see the manipulation of the system.

What you are seeing is the effects of interest bearing debts that are unpayable.  We have a $57 trillion dollar interest bearing debt and a 7.7 trillion dollar money supply.  Clearly the debt has grown so large it’s the interest alone will soon be so large it’s going to crush the whole system.

I also don’t mind having a non-debt based system (hard currency fits that).

But we have a hard currency right now with the U.S. Coins, but those are all a debt to the people before they can move into circulation.  Unless I’m wrong by hard currency you mean commodity money right?  Commodity money can be either spent or loaned into circulation.  Either a wealth or a debt, along with any other form of money.  I believe it’s the principles under which out monetary system functions not what substance the money consists of.  One brings freedom (wealth money) the other brings economic servitude (debt money).

What I don’t support is all the talk about having a government issued money with free loans for those deemed worthy by a bueracracy.

If it’s loaned it isn’t free, it’s a debt.  I support having money earned into circulation to pay for things our society needs that everyone can benifit from.

It’s fantasy because that is exactly what we have now and it doesn’t work.

It’s a fantasy if you believe your government is creating free money.  If that is the case why does the government have so much interest bearing debt and whom to they owe it to?

You have to let the market (read this as people and their individual preferences) decide what is right.

Can you please explain to me how the market is ever going to be free when the only way they can get any money into circulation is by borrowing it from a banking system at interest?  This whole free market theory sounds great but we have anything but a free market.  We have a market that is completely owned and controlled by the banking system.

Another thing I want to emphasis, is banks are not some evil alien entity that is taking over the world?

I don’t understand your question.  Can you please clarify it.

Who do you think owns a bank?

They are corporations owned by the shareholders.  Who controls them is another question which solely depends on each individual bank.

The final thought that I hope we all get out of this discussion is “Wealth is not money”.  Money is a means to conviently exchange one form of wealth for another.

Wealth is all material objects having economic value measureable in price that can be bought, sold, or stocked for future disposition and capable of satisfying human needs and desires in making lives more physically acceptable.

Money is just a man made tool that should only be used to enhance fair and honest trading of goods and services.  Money like all tools can be used for good or evil purposes.  I think it’s becoming more and more obvious what this money system is being used for.

Money can either represent wealth or debt.  If you want to use paper notes backed by commodities are those notes going to go into circulation as an interest bearing debt or as a representation of the peoples production all based on wealth, with no debt to the people?

  • Tue, Feb 02, 2010 - 09:41am

    #70
    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Peak Prosperity Admin

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 31 2017

    Posts: 1616

    count placeholder

    Re: For or Against Usury

That’s not true either, because when a loan goes bad, that bank has to take and use it’s income and apply it to the remaining principle balance.  When the banks do this, and use their income to write off the loss on those bad loans that money gets destroyed and written off the books.  When there is massive foreclosers it actually dries up the money supply even faster.  This is the process in which a bank becomes insolvent, because when their income fails to meet their outgo (loans going bad) they are in the negative and hence, they get put out of business and swallowed up by the larger banks who actually get paid to take those bad banks.  They get paid by the FDIC.  I know this for a fact because I had the FDIC head guy tell this to me personally at a senate banking hearing up here in Minnesota.

I still don’t believe this is true.  Bank makes loan, lender spends money so now it is being circulated.  Lender defaults on loan.  Bank either absorbs the loss with profits or goes under.  If banks goes under, FDIC steps in and makes depositors whole.  All this results in money in the sytem that is never destroyed and not tied to debt.

If all the money is going to be created as interest bearing loans where will the money come from to pay the interest?

Did I ever say all money is created as interest bearing loans? No.  As long as you have some amount of money not loaned you can pay off the interest as the money circulates in the system.  This is where we are going to just have to agree to disagree as I don’t believe the assumption” that “all money is loaned into existance” that makes the basis of your argument.  At any rate, what I have said, many times, it that I believe FRB can probably co-exist with other systems.  What we need is competition in currencies.

Have you ever owned and operated a business?

Yes my self and some business partners did it with nearly no debt, that is we bootstrapped the company.  Grew it to 50 employees and then sold it. Have you?

They are corporations owned by the shareholders.  Who controls them is another question which solely depends on each individual bank.

Yes and other than the very largest banks, that is most likely your neighbors.  Or in the case of  a CU, it’s owned by the members, no corporate governance.

I support having money earned into circulation to pay for things our society needs that everyone can benifit from.

Can you explain how this will work?  In a way that is not run by a government?

As far as how you get new currencies into use?  I believe if you remove the legal tender laws and capital gains and sales tax for anything used as a currency, you will have new currencies “spontaneously be created” as described in the crash course.  That is without the government restricting them, they will come into existance as people choose a medium of exchange other than the USD.  Some people will exchange dollars for as long as it remains reasonable to do so, which might be a very short amount of time, after all once a 20 is only as valuable as toilet paper, people will stop using it.  There is no reason we need a single currency in use.

 

Viewing 10 posts - 61 through 70 (of 120 total)

Login or Register to post comments