If the problem is too much money.....

33 posts / 0 new
Last post
Thomas Hedin's picture
Thomas Hedin
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 28 2009
Posts: 815
If the problem is too much money.....

I keep seeing all these people saying that the problem is that they just print to much money, and it makes all the other money just worthless without addressing the fact that 100% of our money comes into exsistance as an interest bearing loan.  They also skip by the fact that as the debt increases so does the interest load(generally, it does depend on the interest rates).  As the debt grows so does the interest load, and the tax load to service the debt on the government debts, and with the increase in the interest load and tax load the cost of business increases(price inflation).

So how would putting money into circulation free of debt harm the economy?

 

OR

Lets just say for instance that too much money is our problem.  Then how about we all pull out half the money we have and tear it up, because by the rational of the people who say they 'just print to much money' we'll solve all our economic problems by tearing up our money, that way we will quit having too much of it.  If that is the solution lets just do it so we can end our economic disaster and get back to prosperity.

 

Lets start using some common sense here people.

Support The Minnesota Transportation Act, because it will put real debt free, wealth based money into circulation which can be used to pay down the debt and decrease the cost of doing business(restore the purchasing power of the dollar).

Farmer Brown's picture
Farmer Brown
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 23 2008
Posts: 1503
Re: If the problem is too much money.....

A thread has been created to discuss the Minnesota Transportation Act.  Anyone interested can go here: http://www.peakprosperity.com/forum/minnesota-transportation-act-horrible-idea/26260

Thomas, stop hijacking this entire site.  Most people here are willing to discuss just about anything, but you do not have a right to hijack the site.  Of course I am not the owner, and maybe CM does not mind your blatant propaganda attempts, but I am not the first to voice my decreasing amount of patience with your neverending political parade.

jneo's picture
jneo
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 7 2009
Posts: 742
Re: If the problem is too much money.....

 

Not sure if tearing it up would do much, considering how 3% of the money supply is actual physical money. Rest of it is all digital.

 

Debt free money would be nice.  Gotta end the OLIGARCHS and their scam.  

SagerXX's picture
SagerXX
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 11 2009
Posts: 2237
Re: If the problem is too much money.....
Farmer Brown wrote:

A thread has been created to discuss the Minnesota Transportation Act.  Anyone interested can go here: http://www.peakprosperity.com/forum/minnesota-transportation-act-horrible-idea/26260

Thomas, stop hijacking this entire site.  Most people here are willing to discuss just about anything, but you do not have a right to hijack the site.  Of course I am not the owner, and maybe CM does not mind your blatant propaganda attempts, but I am not the first to voice my decreasing amount of patience with your neverending political parade.

Second that.  How wacky is it that after months of howling about the MTA, it gets it own thread and TH is nowhere to be seen on it?

DrKrbyLuv's picture
DrKrbyLuv
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 1995
Re: If the problem is too much money.....

Farmer Brown said:

A thread has been created to discuss the Minnesota Transportation Act. Anyone interested can go here: http://www.peakprosperity.com/forum/minnesota-transportation-act-horribl...

Thomas, stop hijacking this entire site. Most people here are willing to discuss just about anything, but you do not have a right to hijack the site. Of course I am not the owner, and maybe CM does not mind your blatant propaganda attempts, but I am not the first to voice my decreasing amount of patience with your neverending political parade.

Farmer Brown,

Thomas did not start the "Minnesota Transportation Act a Horrible Idea" thread, it was started by someone else and I don't think you should take it upon yourself to steer all of Thomas' comments there.  I have observed many people visiting this forum ask "what can we do about it" with respect to monetary policy.  Thomas offers monetary solutions and logic that I think many find interesting.  If not, they may freely pass on those posts.

Monetary theory is an extremely important issue as people try to figure out what is happening.  The causes and solutions to our financial crisis become evident when one starts probing the fundamentals of modern money mechanics.  What you see as propaganda I see as a refreshing dose of common sense and monetary wisdom.  Many will bitch about the current state of affairs but few stand up with viable solutions.

As long as one of the "Es" is the economy, then the fundamental issue of monetary theory and mechanics should remain a relevant and important part of this forum.

Larry

JAG's picture
JAG
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 26 2008
Posts: 2492
Re: If the problem is too much money.....

The problem is too much marketing.....+1 FB,

and Sager expressed my observations perfectly! (as usual) 

Thomas Hedin's picture
Thomas Hedin
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 28 2009
Posts: 815
Re: If the problem is too much money.....

I did go to the "horrible idea" thread Sager and JAG. 

 

Farmer Brown,

Instead of attacking me, how about you attack my logic and find out where it is flawed?  If you don't want to read what I post, then please, skip over it, and let the other people who are interested in monetary facts and solutions feel free to read.  I respect everything you write and don't tell you where to go or what to do, or to leave the site.

I am not a highjacker, I'm mearly a concerned citizen who stumbled upon the fraud that is our banking system, and is working day and night to fix it.  I've made every effort possible with you to hear your ideas to fix our system.  In as little as three years, mathmatically, the interest on the total debt(government, state, personal, businesss) if it continues to expand at the current rate will exceed the total consumer income.  I believe that we can either stop fighting with each other, start to learn the facts about how money is created and destroyed in our system, and the consequences thereof, or we are going to watch our country literally be ripped apart by this parasitic banking system. 

I enjoy posting on CM.com because of all the posting I've did CM appears to really let people run free with ideas, even if they counter what he thinks, and why shouldn't people be allowed to be free thinkers?  If I don't agree with someone, I mearly just ask them a question where I think there might be a problem.  Please stop the name calling as I doubt it will do any good for me, or anyone else on this website.  All I ask is that if there is something factually wrong with what I'm posting, please let me know.  And for the record, yes I have learned a lot from coming to this website.  I find a lot of great information here.

 

Farmer Brown's picture
Farmer Brown
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 23 2008
Posts: 1503
Re: If the problem is too much money.....

Thomas,

The reason I have been forced to resort to attacking you is because you will not defend your ideas but you do continue to lobby for them to the great annoyance of many.  You have been asked serious questions by people whom you might be able to win to your side, but instead of engaging them in a real discussion, you avoid questions and continue popping the same ideas you will not defend into other discussions.

The following is what I wrote a few weeks ago.  I am still waiting for an answer:

You continue to insist that government can produce money.  If you believe that, then you must have a different definition of what money is than I do.  I firmly believe that money represents excess production.  Since the government cannot produce anything - in fact, it itself is a product of excess production, it cannot produce money.  It subsists only upon the excess production of others, and excess production must exist in order to have money in the first place, and to create a government in the second place.

Government can "fabricate" money it arbitrarilly devines value upon, if people give it the power to do so, and which we obviously have.    But this money exists only at the point of a gun.  The police-force of the state, which by definition is founded upon violence against the individual, is used to enforce acceptance of these arbitrary units, and that is all these units are founded upon - violence against the individual producer, and in favor the collective leach, using the process of converting the product of individual members's production into pieces of paper it declares to be money, which it then spends to provide favor for the market players who produce little other than votes. 

The fact our particular brand of money is technically created by a private banking cartel, and not the actual government, is inmaterial to this discussion.  What you are proposing is the creation of money by government, and what I am contesting is that your system would be no different than what we have now in almost all respects.  Therefore, when I refer to our existing system, and the "government" behind it, I do so conscious of the fact that although it is not the actual government, but a private banking cartel licensed by the government, that detail is irrelevant to what what I see as completely wrong with both the existing system and your proposed system.

One thing you have not explained, at least to my satisfaction, is the concept of interest-free money.  That is illogical and unsustainable as far as I can see.  Would it then be illegal for one person to rent his property to another?  If not, then why would one asset, real estate, be treated differently than another asset, money (which you would make illegal to rent)? 

We practically had interest-free money this whole decade.  That didn't work out so well, and I don't see how any system that makes the cost of money zero or close to zero could possibly avoid bubbles in one asset class or another. 

How would savings be encouraged in your system, if there were no return upon the savings due to zero interest?

These are just some of the basic questions that come to mind when contemplating what you have still mostly refused to explain.  I appreciate the links you have provided, but I am not going to read them until you can provide, in layman's language, a brief summary of what I am going to find there.  All I keep seeing from you are nebulous posts, critiques (which I mostly agree with) against the current system, Socratic questions (which are getting annoying at least to me to be totally frank), all followed up with far too general and as far as I can tell, greatly lacking "solutions". 

 

strabes's picture
strabes
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 7 2009
Posts: 1032
Re: If the problem is too much money.....

Reposting my recent post on the other thread (because I don't know how to link to a specific post).  Sure there have been times when I didn't find Thomas' questions to be the best way of making his points, but we're in the middle of being strangled by the bankers (hello! anyone home!?) just like they strangled Germany, Argentina, Zimbabwe, Russia, SE Asia, Mexico, and now every other country in the world with slight ties to the $.  Thomas is involved in 1 little effort to try something else, a tiny David vs. Goliath, and we attack David!!?  Twilight zone...

--------------

Such a shame that the ONLY proactive effort being made to do anything about the financial tyranny we're under that is about to ruin all of our lives, especially our future generations, is being attacked more than anything on this site.  On another issue, several months ago some were attacking those who just want to garden and ignore the DC/Wall St issues because it's not the perfect solution to solving our problem.  But hey, it's something.  It's something BIG, so let's all do it because it disempowers the banking/corporate system, even though the constitution doesn't grant to the people the power to garden. Laughing   In my opinion, that's a good philosophy on the money issue as well. It's something. States and people better try something or game over...50 states are 50 different labs...it's absurd to claim MN issuing a little new money is going to somehow irresponsibly damage a system that has become impossibly massive and corrupt.  That's elitist thinking...the mentality of the Wall St/DC gang...serves their interests.

Regarding the financial system, this site is just a bunch of talk.  I like it...I participate...I'm just pointing out that nobody is actually DOING anything about the Fed system.  We always hear "we can't do anything about that."  Well, this bill is an example of something that can be done.  It's being done.  It would be done 1) if more people gave a [email protected]#$ about their money system, and 2) if the only people who did care, like those on this site, weren't trying to kill the effort.  It's just odd that somebody actually tries to do something, perfect or not, and it's called "horrible," a "flop," etc.

What is clear is that most people on this site agree the Fed is a malignant cancer.  And we're the patient.  That means death is on the way.  End the Fed is becoming a more accepted idea, even in the media.  I suspect it will be ended as we enter into the bottom of the depression. But I DON'T want it in the hands of the same ole elite bankers that control the same ole drunk idiots in DC.  They cannot be the ones telling us what our next system is going to be without proper input from states/people.  MTA is a good, SMALL lab experiment to see what happens...would be useful info from a state to help the feds when they end the Fed instead of pushing it up to the next banker system...BIS/IMF.

SagerXX's picture
SagerXX
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 11 2009
Posts: 2237
Re: If the problem is too much money.....
Thomas Hedin wrote:

I did go to the "horrible idea" thread Sager and JAG. 

I see now that you did (today).  

My description of your not being on the MTA thread (for days) as being "wacky" is not meant to be disrespectful...

A wee parable:

A bunch of kids are hanging out at the playground -- a little baseball, a little throwin' the football, a little dodgeball.  A new kid shows up, name of Thomas, bouncing a round ball and asking lots of hard-to-answer questions:

"What sort of game uses a spherical ball?"

"What playground game does not allow 'traveling'?"

"Do you know what dribbling is?"

Since none of us kids at the playground had met Thomas before (or played any game with the ball Thomas was bouncing), we were kind of at a loss.  

Thomas would come and go, reappearing every so often to ask more oblique questions.

"Does it make sense to foul a guy on a layup when you're down by 2 with 12 seconds to go?"

Then one day, a couple of other kids set up a funny basket-looking thing on top of a pole on the blacktop, and began running back and forth, throwing their spherical ball around and trying to shoot it into the hoop (or prevent same).  Man, they played that game all afternoon.  We all wondered where the heck Thomas was, now that some other kids had showed up playing his game.  We all figured he'd've been in there making mincemeat outta the newcomers with his patented tomahawk slam (whatever that was [he'd asked us a few questions about it one afternoon]).

We thought it strange he wasn't there to play.  I myself actually used the word "wacky".

...

I almost posted something to this effect in the MTA thread last week, but figured you were either busy with PIMS (projects in meat-space) like me (which is why I've been less-seen around here lately) or on vacation (ditto).

No harm, no foul?

VIVA! -- Sager

Thomas Hedin's picture
Thomas Hedin
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 28 2009
Posts: 815
Re: If the problem is too much money.....

You continue to insist that government can produce money. 

Only you make this claim.  The MTA legally authorizes the State Chartered banks of Minnesota to create money the exact same why they do now (book keeping entry) and spend (instead of loan) money into circulation.

 

 If you believe that, then you must have a different definition of what money is than I do.  I firmly believe that money represents excess production.  

I believe money is just a tool to make barter simpler and more effective.  If money only represents excess production, why not all production?  Anything that we use for money only represents what we owe at the bank since the actual creation of money ALWAYS involves an extention of CREDIT by a private commercial bank.

Since the government cannot produce anything - in fact, it itself is a product of excess production, it cannot produce money.  It subsists only upon the excess production of others, and excess production must exist in order to have money in the first place, and to create a government in the second place.

His entire idea that money represents excess production is wrong.  Money, in our system, only represents what we owe to the banking system.  The government could and should produce the money supply, but our banking system fights tooth and nail to make sure that doesn't happen.  All anyone has to do it read a little bit of history to see that our government has done it in the past.  Government is not a product of excess production.  If I produced excess cars, corn, or haybails, that is not government.  The money can only exsist is somebody goes to a private commercial bank and takes out a loan.

 

Government can "fabricate" money it arbitrarilly devines value upon, if people give it the power to do so, and which we obviously have.   

Again the author believes that our government creates the money, at best it's false, at worse it's a complete lie.  The actual creation of money ONLY happens in private commercial banks.

But this money exists only at the point of a gun. 

When was the last time a banker held you at gun point and forced you to sign a promissory note?

The police-force of the state, which by definition is founded upon violence against the individual, is used to enforce acceptance of these arbitrary units, and that is all these units are founded upon - violence against the individual producer, and in favor the collective leach, using the process of converting the product of individual members's production into pieces of paper it declares to be money, which it then spends to provide favor for the market players who produce little other than votes. 

 

What we use for money, Bank Credit (numbers in a checking account, which has to exsist first in order for the paper currency to exsist which can be purchased by destroying the checking account money) is not called money by any law.  The true money is our system is not the paper currency but the checking account (demand deposit) bank credit.  We simply do not use paper for money, we use bank credit(numbers).  These arbitary units are all court enforceable.

The fact our particular brand of money is technically created by a private banking cartel, and not the actual government, is inmaterial to this discussion. 

The author and me agree here, at this point in time I could care less who creates the money, what I care about is the principles under which our money functions.  Wealth -vs- debt.  I own -vs- I owe.  Does it really matter where the money comes from but the principles under which money functions?  Who gets the benifit of the creation of the money.

What you are proposing is the creation of money by government, and what I am contesting is that your system would be no different than what we have now in almost all respects. 

The author claims that I am advocating having the government create our money supply with the passage of the MTA.  This is a complete lie.  What I am advocating is a legal authorization for the state chartered banking system(the exact same source as the money comes from now) to invest in the states permanant infrastructure, free from debt, all based on wealth, which will allow the interest to be paid on the loans.  Currently right now banks can create money by offering loans or inventsments.  So right now banks can create money by loaning it to you, or by spending it on whatever they want to.  The only change I'm advocating is one small change in the genisis of the creation of money.

Therefore, when I refer to our existing system, and the "government" behind it, I do so conscious of the fact that although it is not the actual government, but a private banking cartel licensed by the government, that detail is irrelevant to what what I see as completely wrong with both the existing system and your proposed system.

Here the author claims that I am trying to change the system, which is blatently false.  What I'm advocating is debt free money to be spent into circulation.  The only differnce with this money is that it can be used to pay the interest on the borrowed money, allowing people to have to money to make their house payments, keep their businesses running ect.....all while building a better infrastucture for the people of Minnesota, which can be used by all the people in the state of minnesota (benificial to everyone).

One thing you have not explained, at least to my satisfaction, is the concept of interest-free money.  That is illogical and unsustainable as far as I can see.  Would it then be illegal for one person to rent his property to another?  If not, then why would one asset, real estate, be treated differently than another asset, money (which you would make illegal to rent)? 

What the author either cannot or will not accept is the idea of debt free money.  I own -vs- I owe.  What he refused to accept is that it is impossible for us to borrow ourselves our of debt and into prosperity.  I'm unsure where he came up with the idea that it's illegal to rent property unless he means that the banking system rents our property to us, which isn't true either, they loan us a promise to pay, that they never have to make good on.  I.E. They loan us money they do not have and are the only source of 'money'. 

We practically had interest-free money this whole decade.  That didn't work out so well, and I don't see how any system that makes the cost of money zero or close to zero could possibly avoid bubbles in one asset class or another. 

100% of the money we use came into exsistance through an interest bearing loan.  I'm unsure where the author is getting his infomation but where ever he is getting it, it's completely false.

How would savings be encouraged in your system, if there were no return upon the savings due to zero interest?

What I would like the author to explain is how can anyone save when the only way they can get any money into circulation is by borrowing it.?

Can you borrow 100 dollars from a bank (the only way money goes into circulation right now) pay back 110 dollars (the principle plus the interest) and keep 10 for yourself without having someone else go deeper into debt?

These are just some of the basic questions that come to mind when contemplating what you have still mostly refused to explain.  I appreciate the links you have provided, but I am not going to read them until you can provide, in layman's language, a brief summary of what I am going to find there. 

I've provided everything in layman's language but he refuses to read any of it.  I'm beginning to believe that the author is following a belief system rather than factual study.  It appears he lacks any desire to actually understand our monetary system.

All I keep seeing from you are nebulous posts, critiques (which I mostly agree with) against the current system, Socratic questions (which are getting annoying at least to me to be totally frank), all followed up with far too general and as far as I can tell, greatly lacking "solutions".

He cannot understand the solution because he does understand the problem, and when I provide resources to help him undertand the problem he refuses to even make the attempt to understand.  I found it not worth my time to try to explain the problem to someone who flat out tells me he will not even make the attempt to understand it because it goes against what he believes.

 

Our current system does not work because its all based on interest bearing debt and once time and interest kick in the debt grows but the money supply does not.  It's very simple math.

I don't know how much more more of laymans terms our monetary system can be explained by than the following quotes.

4 Of the Most Important Quotes in Economics:

1. “…the actual creation of money always involves the extension of credit by private commercial banks.”
- Russell L. Munk, Assistant General Counsel, Department of the Treasury

2. “Money is created when loans are issued and debts incurred; money is extinguished when loans are repaid.”
- John B. Henderson, Senior Specialist in Price Economics, Congressional Research Service, Report No. 83-125 E

3. “Thus, the money that one borrower uses to pay interest on a loan has been created somewhere else in the economy by another loan.”
- John M. Yetter, Attorney-Advisor, Department of the Treasury

4. “Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless position is almost incredible, but there it is. It is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon.”
- Robert H. Hemphill, Credit Manager of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta

 

Think about it.

First, we have to borrow, just to have a medium of exchange.

Then, we have to borrow to pay the interest that is due on the initial borrowed money.

Q: Wouldn't that make it impossible to get out of debt?

A: That is obvious.

 

Everything we have (excluding cosmic debris) comes from the Earth.  As we produce, we create wealth; we do not create money as we produce. That only happens at a bank.
Now, money only comes into being when someone, an individual, business or government, takes out a loan. 
It's true that gold, silver, platinum and diamonds are forms of wealth (wealth = raw resources + labor + innovation) but we don't use wealth for money.  We use debt.
The Minnesota Transportation Act (MTA) will introduce a stream of wealth-based money into the economy to allow people to pay off their debt. Bank default rates will decline and our economy will stabilize.
We can't grow money and we don't mine it either.  We borrow it.  Our money is not wealth - it's debt.
.
JAG's picture
JAG
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 26 2008
Posts: 2492
Re: If the problem is too much money.....

Sorry Thomas if I was a little harsh in my criticism of you, as I know you had good intentions...

Strabes said:

We always hear "we can't do anything about that."

Well, when it comes to politics, I'm the poster boy for the above quote. I apologize for my negative outlook in this regard, but wouldn't we all be better served by applying the group-mind to how we might personally mitigate the adverse effects of our current monetary/economic system, rather than speculating on how we should change it?

There is a great deal of brainpower in this community. If we harnessed that power and focused it on the survival of us as individuals, then our success would naturally serve as a spring board to systemic change that is needed. 

So if we are to Be The Change That You Want To See In The World, how do we begin?

Morpheus's picture
Morpheus
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 27 2008
Posts: 1200
Re: If the problem is too much money.....
DrKrbyLuv wrote:

Farmer Brown said:

A thread has been created to discuss the Minnesota Transportation Act. Anyone interested can go here: http://www.peakprosperity.com/forum/minnesota-transportation-act-horribl...

Thomas, stop hijacking this entire site. Most people here are willing to discuss just about anything, but you do not have a right to hijack the site. Of course I am not the owner, and maybe CM does not mind your blatant propaganda attempts, but I am not the first to voice my decreasing amount of patience with your neverending political parade.

Farmer Brown,

Thomas did not start the "Minnesota Transportation Act a Horrible Idea" thread, it was started by someone else and I don't think you should take it upon yourself to steer all of Thomas' comments there.  I have observed many people visiting this forum ask "what can we do about it" with respect to monetary policy.  Thomas offers monetary solutions and logic that I think many find interesting.  If not, they may freely pass on those posts.

Monetary theory is an extremely important issue as people try to figure out what is happening.  The causes and solutions to our financial crisis become evident when one starts probing the fundamentals of modern money mechanics.  What you see as propaganda I see as a refreshing dose of common sense and monetary wisdom.  Many will bitch about the current state of affairs but few stand up with viable solutions.

As long as one of the "Es" is the economy, then the fundamental issue of monetary theory and mechanics should remain a relevant and important part of this forum.

Larry

+1

Thomas Hedin's picture
Thomas Hedin
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 28 2009
Posts: 815
Re: If the problem is too much money.....

Saggerx,

The first time I seen the MTA thread was last night.  Otherwise I would have been there to play ball.  The only difference is I want our money system to be a system where we all can win, instead of having 1 in 10 borrowers forced into foreclosure.

I believe the people ought to be able to own their property, and their money, and neither of which is true today because the banking system has a mortgage on 100% of the property in the USA and owns 100% of the money, all the time.

Davos's picture
Davos
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 17 2008
Posts: 3620
Re: If the problem is too much money.....
Thomas Hedin wrote:

I keep seeing all these people saying that the problem is that they just print to much money, and it makes all the other money just worthless without addressing the fact that 100% of our money comes into exsistance as an interest bearing loan.  They also skip by the fact that as the debt increases so does the interest load(generally, it does depend on the interest rates).  As the debt grows so does the interest load, and the tax load to service the debt on the government debts, and with the increase in the interest load and tax load the cost of business increases(price inflation).

So how would putting money into circulation free of debt harm the economy?

 

OR

Lets just say for instance that too much money is our problem.  Then how about we all pull out half the money we have and tear it up, because by the rational of the people who say they 'just print to much money' we'll solve all our economic problems by tearing up our money, that way we will quit having too much of it.  If that is the solution lets just do it so we can end our economic disaster and get back to prosperity.

 

Lets start using some common sense here people.

Support The Minnesota Transportation Act, because it will put real debt free, wealth based money into circulation which can be used to pay down the debt and decrease the cost of doing business(restore the purchasing power of the dollar).

Hello Thomas:

Well, if I'm not misstaken my last email to you said too much money.

Too much money IS too much debt. Debt is the problem. Our debt is now at a level where it can't be paid back. It can't be serviced. The fix, which you ommited from this post was to the effect that money must be devalued and the dollar re-denominated. That obliterates the fixed debt.

It goes without saying, and I'm certain that everyone on this site knows that money created is loaned into existance. That is a kindergarden given. Bernake is the only m_ _ _n I saw on 60 Minutes who said Quantitative Easing isn't a tax burden. BS. How no one called him on that is beyond me.

Thomas Hedin's picture
Thomas Hedin
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 28 2009
Posts: 815
Re: If the problem is too much money.....

JAG

Sorry Thomas if I was a little harsh in my criticism of you, as I know you had good intentions...

I have a workable solution not good intentions.

Thomas Hedin's picture
Thomas Hedin
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 28 2009
Posts: 815
Re: If the problem is too much money.....

Davos,

Hello Thomas:

Well, if I'm not misstaken my last email to you said too much money.

Too much money IS too much debt. Debt is the problem. Our debt is now at a level where it can't be paid back. It can't be serviced. The fix, which you ommited from this post was to the effect that money must be devalued and the dollar re-denominated. That obliterates the fixed debt.

It goes without saying, and I'm certain that everyone on this site knows that money created is loaned into existance. That is a kindergarden given. Bernake is the only m_ _ _n I saw on 60 Minutes who said Quantitative Easing isn't a tax burden. BS. How no one called him on that is beyond me.

Here is where the MTA is different.  It puts debt free, wealth money money into circulation to bring down the debt (sustainable monetary policy).  Do we agree that using debt money is completely unsustainable?

Debt is the problem, so lets create a mathematical solution to the debt problem.  That is all the MTA does, and it does it in a way that benifits all the people in the state uniformly without giving any special interest to one particular group(as much as can be expected).  We aren't suffering from to much money, we are suffering from to much debt and debt and money clearly cannot be the same thing.  Debt is what you owe, money is what you're supposed to make final payment with, and if you always owe, you can never make final payment.  Using debt for money does not work.(i'm saying this to the people reading it not davos because I think he understands this).  It always ends in financial ruin for the producers and transferes all the real wealth to the non-producers(banking system) when they mearly loan their promise to pay, which they never have to pay.

 

I think what Davos is trying to say is that money becomes devalued because the money used to get you into debt isn't enough to get you out of debt?

So in order to maintain or restore the purchasing power of our dollar we are going to have to reduce the debt load while mainting the money supply.  Right now if we reduce the debt we also reduce the money supply, which people are already to short on money or they wouldn't be having all these foreclosers or business failures.  The only way we are going to fix this is by putting money into circulation free from debt and interest so that the interest can be paid.  There is no other way.  We've got a chance to fix this, in fact its our only option is to fix it, or lose everything we own to the banking system.

 

Farmer Brown's picture
Farmer Brown
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 23 2008
Posts: 1503
Re: If the problem is too much money.....

Well Thomas, at least now we're getting somewhere.  In a few more posts, we might actually know something.

Thomas Hedin wrote:

You continue to insist that government can produce money. 

Only you make this claim.  The MTA legally authorizes the State Chartered banks of Minnesota to create money the exact same why they do now (book keeping entry) and spend (instead of loan) money into circulation.

Thomas, as I stated already, if the government creates debt/money or if banks do it under authority of the government, what difference does it make?  Money/debt is being created out of thin air without regard to the supply of goods and services.  So long as the money supply is not related to goods and services, and any amount can be created at anytime, how is the specific source of this creation relevant?

Quote:

 

 If you believe that, then you must have a different definition of what money is than I do.  I firmly believe that money represents excess production.  

I believe money is just a tool to make barter simpler and more effective.  If money only represents excess production, why not all production?  Anything that we use for money only represents what we owe at the bank since the actual creation of money ALWAYS involves an extention of CREDIT by a private commercial bank.

If money is a tool to make barter simpler and more effective, then whoever creates money - be it government or banks, has tremendous power because that which they can create with a book-keeping entry can be traded for that which requires real labor, sweat, and resources to make.  That is why I do not support any kind of make-believe money.  By allowing make-believe money, you are entrusting its creator with the power to steal from you.  What you produce costs work.  Producing make-believe money costs nothing.

As for excess production vs. all production:  excess production is what is saved.  Everything else is consumed and ceases to exist.  Excess production is what we have available to trade, which as you stated earlier, forms the basis for barter, whose facilitation is the whole point of having money in the first place.  When money itself is a good, it becomes impossible for anyone to produce it without at the same time spending formerly-created money into the economy. 

Quote:

Anything that we use for money only represents what we owe at the bank since the actual creation of money ALWAYS involves an extention of CREDIT by a private commercial bank.

That is true of today's money.  It is not true of ALL money ALL the time.  Before the monopoly of make-believe money, real assets had to be deposited in real banks or warehouses.  The banks then issued receipts for those deposits and the receipts served as money.  The creation of that receipt, is not an extension of credit by the bank, it's evidence of the deposit the depositor with the bank, and evidence of the claim the depositor now holds against the bank.  So in those not-so-long-ago times, the credit extended was not what the depositor owed the bank - it was what the bank owed the depositor.  Value was created by the depositor first - by saving excess production in the form of grain, wheat, gold what have you.  That excess savings had to exist first before anything could be deposited in a bank and a receipt for real goods could be issued. 

Quote:

 

Since the government cannot produce anything - in fact, it itself is a product of excess production, it cannot produce money.  It subsists only upon the excess production of others, and excess production must exist in order to have money in the first place, and to create a government in the second place.

His entire idea that money represents excess production is wrong.  Money, in our system, only represents what we owe to the banking system.  The government could and should produce the money supply, but our banking system fights tooth and nail to make sure that doesn't happen.  All anyone has to do it read a little bit of history to see that our government has done it in the past.  Government is not a product of excess production.

Thomas, my idea that money represents excess production is not wrong!  That is exactly what money is!  The problem is that what we have today is NOT money!  As you correctly point out, these little pieces of paper we use today represent what we owe the banking system.  I agree with that.  I just do not consider that to be money.  What we use today is a fraud that has been very cleverly imposed upon us without more than a tiny fraction of us even realizing it.  If we are going to agree to a conventionalized medium of trade, the medium of trade must be a product that costs labor and resources itself.  Otherwise all you are doing is licensing someone or some group to steal from the rest of society.

As for government, it can only exist if a society produces more than it absolutely needs to survive.  Of course it only exists on the back of excess production.  The only other way for it to exist would be for it to confiscate production needed for survival (rather than excess production), essentially causing people to starve to death.   

Quote:

If I produced excess cars, corn, or haybails, that is not government. 

Don't be silly.  Refer to what I just said in the prior point.

Quote:

The money can only exsist is somebody goes to a private commercial bank and takes out a loan.

Yes, today that is true.  You are misinterpreting my use of the term "money" to mean today's FRNs, which I do not consider to be money.  I will be more careful to distinguish between actual "money", which hasn't existed for almost 40 years, and FRNs.  In the future, when I refer to the present-day condition, I will use the term, "make-believe money", or if I am referring specifically to the US, I may use "FRNs".  Otherwise, whenever you see me uise the term "money", I am referring to real money.

Quote:

 

Government can "fabricate" money it arbitrarilly devines value upon, if people give it the power to do so, and which we obviously have.   

Again the author believes that our government creates the money, at best it's false, at worse it's a complete lie.  The actual creation of money ONLY happens in private commercial banks.

Gimme a break.  I have said time and time again that it makes no difference whether the government creates it or if banks do so.  Further down in my post, I dedicate a whole paragraph to that.  The government authorizes the creation of money to a private cartel.  We let them do it.  There, is that better?

Quote:

 

But this money exists only at the point of a gun. 

When was the last time a banker held you at gun point and forced you to sign a promissory note?

When was the last time you tried to pay your taxes in something other than FRNs?  Do you deny that attempting to do so will land you in court, in a case you will undoubtedly lose, and when they drag you to jail, there will be men with guns leading you there?

Quote:

 

The police-force of the state, which by definition is founded upon violence against the individual, is used to enforce acceptance of these arbitrary units, and that is all these units are founded upon - violence against the individual producer, and in favor the collective leach, using the process of converting the product of individual members's production into pieces of paper it declares to be money, which it then spends to provide favor for the market players who produce little other than votes. 

 

What we use for money, Bank Credit (numbers in a checking account, which has to exsist first in order for the paper currency to exsist which can be purchased by destroying the checking account money) is not called money by any law.  The true money is our system is not the paper currency but the checking account (demand deposit) bank credit.  We simply do not use paper for money, we use bank credit(numbers).  These arbitary units are all court enforceable.

Completely irrelevant to my point.  As I have been saying, the arbitrary creation of money, or bank credit, is used to collect the product of individual production into pieces of paper or entries of credit that cost nothing to produce.  Again, it makes no difference who creates it or what you call it.  In the end, it is a process by which those who control it by doing nothing, control the rest of us, who do everything.

Quote:

 

The fact our particular brand of money is technically created by a private banking cartel, and not the actual government, is inmaterial to this discussion. 

The author and me agree here, at this point in time I could care less who creates the money, what I care about is the principles under which our money functions.  Wealth -vs- debt.  I own -vs- I owe.  Does it really matter where the money comes from but the principles under which money functions?  Who gets the benifit of the creation of the money.

If you care about what you "own", then why would you be in favor of a system that allows a State access to use unlimited amounts of money to fund projects?  WIth that money, the State will employ labor that would otherwise be involved producing something else.  It will consume resources that could have been available elsewhere.  Everything you wish to "own" will become more expensive, and everything you earn will acquire less.  The make-believe-money itself will no longer be a debt - OK, fine.  I can see how that makes a difference.  I wouldn't use those make-beleive-notes myself for savings purposes because they are as worthless as what we have now, but I am glad the banks will not be earning any interest on it.  Cheerio.

Quote:

What you are proposing is the creation of money by government, and what I am contesting is that your system would be no different than what we have now in almost all respects. 

The author claims that I am advocating having the government create our money supply with the passage of the MTA.  This is a complete lie.  What I am advocating is a legal authorization for the state chartered banking system(the exact same source as the money comes from now) to invest in the states permanant infrastructure, free from debt, all based on wealth, which will allow the interest to be paid on the loans.  Currently right now banks can create money by offering loans or inventsments.  So right now banks can create money by loaning it to you, or by spending it on whatever they want to.  The only change I'm advocating is one small change in the genisis of the creation of money.

If government is not involved in the creation of make-believe-money here, then why does this Bill need to pass the legislature?  Sure, the government would not itself be creating this make-believe-money, not after they pass the bill that authorizes the creation of make-believe money!  LOL!  That's like saying the US Congress has nothing to do with the creation of FRNs because they only authorized creation of the animal that creates them, but do not do any of the actual issuance themselves.

Quote:

 

Therefore, when I refer to our existing system, and the "government" behind it, I do so conscious of the fact that although it is not the actual government, but a private banking cartel licensed by the government, that detail is irrelevant to what what I see as completely wrong with both the existing system and your proposed system.

Here the author claims that I am trying to change the system, which is blatently false.  What I'm advocating is debt free money to be spent into circulation.  The only differnce with this money is that it can be used to pay the interest on the borrowed money, allowing people to have to money to make their house payments, keep their businesses running ect.....all while building a better infrastucture for the people of Minnesota, which can be used by all the people in the state of minnesota (benificial to everyone).

Don't see how you got that from the paragraph you quoted, but I'll address this anyway.  Of course you are changing the system - why would the State need to pass a new Bill if they weren't?  How can "What I am advocating is debt-free money" and "I am not trying to change the system" exist in the same mind? 

Anyway, I am not against this Bill because of the introduction of "debt-free money".  I am all for debt-free-money.  What I am against is make-believe money.  What this Bill would bring is debt-free-make-believe-money as opposed to debt-issued-make-believe-money. 

Quote:

One thing you have not explained, at least to my satisfaction, is the concept of interest-free money.  That is illogical and unsustainable as far as I can see.  Would it then be illegal for one person to rent his property to another?  If not, then why would one asset, real estate, be treated differently than another asset, money (which you would make illegal to rent)? 

What the author either cannot or will not accept is the idea of debt free money.  I own -vs- I owe.  What he refused to accept is that it is impossible for us to borrow ourselves our of debt and into prosperity.  I'm unsure where he came up with the idea that it's illegal to rent property unless he means that the banking system rents our property to us, which isn't true either, they loan us a promise to pay, that they never have to make good on.  I.E. They loan us money they do not have and are the only source of 'money'. 

I originally thought you were opposed to all interest-bearing loans.  By this response, I take it that you are not.  You are only concerned with interest on make-believe money when it originates but are OK with it afterwards, can be my only conclusion.  If that is the case, then how is it decided how much make-believe-money needs to be issued?  Interest rates normally impose a cost, or penalty, on borrowing and spending.  Since the type of make-believe-money you are advocating would have no cost, then what, if anything, would serve to limit the amount spent into existence?  Another question:  If the government has access to all the make-believe-money it needs or wants, every private borrower is going to try and go through government to obtain make-believe-money, would they not?  I mean, why borrow make-believe-money from a bank when, if there is someway to get a government contract, you can get debt-free-make-believe-money from them?  Yet a third question:  Given that with today's make-believe-money, government is the main borrower, and given that with your scheme of make-believe-money the government will never have to borrow again, would it be fair to conclude that there is going to be far less demand to borrow from savings accumulated by the private sector?  Would there be any point at all for anyone to save, ever?

Quote:

We practically had interest-free money this whole decade.  That didn't work out so well, and I don't see how any system that makes the cost of money zero or close to zero could possibly avoid bubbles in one asset class or another. 

100% of the money we use came into exsistance through an interest bearing loan.  I'm unsure where the author is getting his infomation but where ever he is getting it, it's completely false.

It's "totally" false that we "practically had interest-free money this whole decade"?  I guess that depends on youre definitions of "totally" and "practically".  I call near-zero-interest rates "practically" zero.  Since "practically" means "almost", it's totally meaningless to use the term "totally false" in reference to a claim that is purposefully couched in a subjective and indeterminate term such as "practically", isn't it?

Quote:

 

How would savings be encouraged in your system, if there were no return upon the savings due to zero interest?

What I would like the author to explain is how can anyone save when the only way they can get any money into circulation is by borrowing it.?

Can you borrow 100 dollars from a bank (the only way money goes into circulation right now) pay back 110 dollars (the principle plus the interest) and keep 10 for yourself without having someone else go deeper into debt?

Thomas, even though we have a debt-based-make-beleive-money system, individual participants still can save.  You are 100% correct that every credit is a debit somewhere else and that they all have to add to zero.  In aggregate, our make-believe-debt-based-money system is equal to zero.  No arguments there.

My question remains however:  If there is no return upon savings in your debt-free-make-believe money system, why would anyone bother?

Quote:

These are just some of the basic questions that come to mind when contemplating what you have still mostly refused to explain.  I appreciate the links you have provided, but I am not going to read them until you can provide, in layman's language, a brief summary of what I am going to find there. 

I've provided everything in layman's language but he refuses to read any of it.  I'm beginning to believe that the author is following a belief system rather than factual study.  It appears he lacks any desire to actually understand our monetary system.

LOL!  Thomas, until this post, you have refused to answer any questions.  Now we are finally approaching what may pass for a conversation or a debate.  Until now, all you've done is posed condescending questions and played word games with people when you know perfectly well what they mean.  I welcome your decision to finally debate and will leave it at that.

Quote:

 

Our current system does not work because its all based on interest bearing debt and once time and interest kick in the debt grows but the money supply does not.  It's very simple math.

I don't know how much more more of laymans terms our monetary system can be explained by than the following quotes.

4 Of the Most Important Quotes in Economics:

1. “…the actual creation of money always involves the extension of credit by private commercial banks.”
- Russell L. Munk, Assistant General Counsel, Department of the Treasury

2. “Money is created when loans are issued and debts incurred; money is extinguished when loans are repaid.”
- John B. Henderson, Senior Specialist in Price Economics, Congressional Research Service, Report No. 83-125 E

3. “Thus, the money that one borrower uses to pay interest on a loan has been created somewhere else in the economy by another loan.”
- John M. Yetter, Attorney-Advisor, Department of the Treasury

4. “Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless position is almost incredible, but there it is. It is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon.”
- Robert H. Hemphill, Credit Manager of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta

 

Think about it.

First, we have to borrow, just to have a medium of exchange.

Then, we have to borrow to pay the interest that is due on the initial borrowed money.

Q: Wouldn't that make it impossible to get out of debt?

A: That is obvious.

 

Everything we have (excluding cosmic debris) comes from the Earth.  As we produce, we create wealth; we do not create money as we produce. That only happens at a bank. Now, money only comes into being when someone, an individual, business or government, takes out a loan.  It's true that gold, silver, platinum and diamonds are forms of wealth (wealth = raw resources + labor + innovation) but we don't use wealth for money.  We use debt. The Minnesota Transportation Act (MTA) will introduce a stream of wealth-based money into the economy to allow people to pay off their debt. Bank default rates will decline and our economy will stabilize. We can't grow money and we don't mine it either.  We borrow it.  Our money is not wealth - it's debt.

Thomas, you do not need to convince anyone here, certainly not me, that the current system is flawed, nor do you need to explain why.  We all know debt-based money doesn't work, regardless of whether it's debt-based real money or debt-based-make-believe-money. 

However, what you are failing to even recognize, despite all the layman's term sin the world that not only I but others have put forth, is:

 

How is the supply of debt-free-make-believe-money controlled?!  That is the underlying question.  You have never answered it, and I'm pretty sure it's because neither you nor Byron Dale has one.   The system you propose eliminates the problem of interest-at-issuance.  Bravo.  It does nothing to address the problem inherent in all make-believe-money schemes - the uncontrolled abuse of the system thorugh make-believe-money creation, leading to hyperinflation and self-destruction.

 

JAG's picture
JAG
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 26 2008
Posts: 2492
Re: If the problem is too much money.....

If you haven't seen the Money As Debt II: Promise Unleashed video yet, it discusses many of the possible solutions and their ramifications. These are the last two segments of the video:

Morpheus's picture
Morpheus
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 27 2008
Posts: 1200
Re: If the problem is too much money.....
Thomas Hedin wrote:

JAG

Sorry Thomas if I was a little harsh in my criticism of you, as I know you had good intentions...

I have a workable solution not good intentions.

Thomas.

Still, you haven't demonstrated a compelling argument that this act would counter the number 1 sin of the state. That is the creation of too much currency that is not backed by a hard asset. That said, I have a hard time swallowing your claim that "you have a workable solution".

Have you played devil's advocate yet and considered the negative aspects of this bill?

I'm sorry. Although it seems better than the status quo and may remove some villians, in the end it seems no better than what we have now.

Thomas Hedin's picture
Thomas Hedin
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 28 2009
Posts: 815
Re: If the problem is too much money.....

100% of the money created by this bill will be backed by hard assets.

100% of the money we use right now is 100% backed by all the property is the United States but as a mortgage to the banking system.

Money without backing is worthless, this bill does not get rid of that.  What it does is backs the money with an evidence of our production instead of an evidence what what we owe to the banking system.

What more could you want?

Davos's picture
Davos
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 17 2008
Posts: 3620
Re: If the problem is too much money.....
Thomas Hedin wrote:

 

100% of the money we use right now is 100% backed by all the property is the United States but as a mortgage to the banking system.

 

I'm not sure I'd agree with that statement. 

goes211's picture
goes211
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 1114
Re: If the problem is too much money.....

Thomas wrote:

100% of the money created by this bill will be backed by hard assets.

In what quantity and backed by what specific asset? 

How much will it create $100 / $100K / $100mil / $100 bil / ... or some other amount?  I am sure that this money will be spent with all the efficenties of a typical government run construction project.

So if I acquire as much money as the MTA puts into existance, can I exchange it for the underlying asset?  If not, how exactly is this new debt-free money backed by something?

Thomas wrote:

Money without backing is worthless.

If you truly believe that please send me all you debt-backed FRNs.Laughing  I will use them to purchase real items ( or at least pay my taxes ) until the day the currency collapses.

All fiat currencies are intrinsically worthless, except that they are backed by the force of the state.  Ironically, inspite of their lack of any intrinsic value, they do have utility value as long as there are people that will exchange their goods for the fiat currency.

Thomas Hedin's picture
Thomas Hedin
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 28 2009
Posts: 815
Re: If the problem is too much money.....

Thomas Hedin wrote:

100% of the money we use right now is 100% backed by all the property is the United States but as a mortgage to the banking system.

I'm not sure I'd agree with that statement. 

What part doesn't make sense to you?  Maybe I can explain it further?

Thomas Hedin's picture
Thomas Hedin
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 28 2009
Posts: 815
Re: If the problem is too much money.....

Thomas wrote:

100% of the money created by this bill will be backed by hard assets.

In what quantity and backed by what specific asset?  

The quantity will be decided by the people of the State of Minnesota and the specific asset will be all the permanant infrastructure (Roads, bridges, ect).

How much will it create $100 / $100K / $100mil / $100 bil / ... or some other amount?  I am sure that this money will be spent with all the efficenties of a typical government run construction project.

Everything will stay the same as far as how the money is distributed, the only change will be the genisis of the creation of money.  This money will be wealth money instead of debt money.  In other words a debt free meduim of exchange that is an asset to the people not a liability.  The amount that will be created is likely impossible to predict, hopefully enough to get all the people in the state out of debt.  That amount will purely be decided by the people themselves.  You'll have to read the bill to understand it further, or go to youtube and watch Byron explain the bill.  Private business will be the ones doing the bulk of the construction.

So if I acquire as much money as the MTA puts into existance, can I exchange it for the underlying asset?  If not, how exactly is this new debt-free money backed by something? 

You won't be able to exchange it for the underlying asset, but you'll be able to use the underlaying asset just the exact same we you do now except the money used to pay for this asset will NOT be a liability to the people it will become an asset.  This money will work towards the benifit of society instead of towards the destruction of society.  The money will be backed by the permanant infrastructure that all of society can use towards their benifit.

 

Thomas wrote:

Money without backing is worthless.

If you truly believe that please send me all you debt-backed FRNs.Laughing  I will use them to purchase real items ( or at least pay my taxes ) until the day the currency collapses.

Federal Reserve Notes are 100% backed by the full faith and credit of the United States Government.  In other words the banking system has a mortgage on all the property in the United States, and this needs to stop.  We should own our country, not the banking system.  The only way we are going to fix this problem is by putting money into circulation that is free of debt that can be used to pay off the debts to the banking system and still leave us with a medium of exchange.  I do believe the debts should just be written off.

 

All fiat currencies are intrinsically worthless, except that they are backed by the force of the state.  Ironically, inspite of their lack of any intrinsic value, they do have utility value as long as there are people that will exchange their goods for the fiat currency.

This bill does not create any fiat currency if that is what you're worried about.  Money should only be used as a tool to enchance fair and honest trading of real goods and services.  Even though check book money is not fiat money (it is only accepted as money by pure mental deception by the banking system) all of it does come into exsistance through a court enforceable interest bearing debt.  If you want a way for the people to get out from underneath the unpayable debt to the banking system without having their property stolen by our corrupt court system then we are going to have to pass laws like the MTA and put money into circulation that is free from debt so that the debt can be paid off.
 
What else would you want? 
Cloudfire's picture
Cloudfire
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 29 2008
Posts: 1813
Re: If the problem is too much money.....

Kudos, Farmer Brown, for bringing this into focus . . . I'm one of the folks who finds it annoying to stumble on this subject, shallowly or cryptically discussed, by the same player, in a wide variety of threads, over and over.  It's been proposed as the solution to everything from the national debt to the swine flu, but I've yet to discover how.

DrKrbyLuv's picture
DrKrbyLuv
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 1995
Re: If the problem is too much money.....

strabes said:

Thomas is involved in 1 little effort to try something else, a tiny David vs. Goliath, and we attack David!!?  Twilight zone...

...Such a shame that the ONLY proactive effort being made to do anything about the financial tyranny we're under that is about to ruin all of our lives, especially our future generations, is being attacked more than anything on this site.

Well said.  I just don't get it...why is someone being attacked in such a personal way?  Especially one who is working hard and courageously along with Byron Dale to help people at least partially disconnect from what is coming our way via Washington and Wall Street. 

Maybe some here neither appreciate nor take their efforts seriously but never the less, they could have a major impact if they get one state on-board and rest assured they are presenting their ideas to other states.  Anyone sincerely interested in building local communities, should take the time to understand the concept of states having more financial autonomy as opposed to relying on the international banking cartel.

Think about this for a minute...our economy will eventually collapse from the burden of debt - I think we all see that coming.  If states had their own banks, or banking privileges, their citizens would have a much better chance of financial survival.  This could be a safety net at the very least.

The real tragedy of a depression is that jobs become scarce, businesses and people go bankrupt, mortgages are foreclosed on because there isn't enough money.  And as any of us should know from the CC, the exponential growth of interest debt is at the core of the problem.  If growth slows down or stops, the money supply begins to contract as debt is paid faster than new loans can be issued.  Injecting debt free money into the economy is a mathematically sound approach.

BTW, their idea is not new.  It has been done many times before (in various forms) through-out history with great success.

Larry

Thomas Hedin's picture
Thomas Hedin
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 28 2009
Posts: 815
Re: If the problem is too much money.....

strabes said:

Thomas is involved in 1 little effort to try something else, a tiny David vs. Goliath, and we attack David!!?  Twilight zone...

...Such a shame that the ONLY proactive effort being made to do anything about the financial tyranny we're under that is about to ruin all of our lives, especially our future generations, is being attacked more than anything on this site.

Well said.  I just don't get it...why is someone being attacked in such a personal way? 

My personal opinion is that people, especially the educated class have a very hard time admitting that they have been lied to and stolen from their entire lives.  And who can blame?  It's not a matter of I'm right -vs- you're wrong.  It's a matter of what is wrong with our monetary system, and what can WE do to fix it.  That is exactly what the MTA addresses. 

Especially one who is working hard and courageously along with Byron Dale to help people at least partially disconnect from what is coming our way via Washington and Wall Street. 

Well there is a few of us that are very dedicated, and we are growing in numbers all the time, but again, the hardest part for most people to come to grips with is that this banking system is designed to steal all the property from the people, and the solution is so simple most people just reject it because it's so simple, or they don't understand, or both.

Maybe some here neither appreciate nor take their efforts seriously but never the less, they could have a major impact if they get one state on-board and rest assured they are presenting their ideas to other states.  Anyone sincerely interested in building local communities, should take the time to understand the concept of states having more financial autonomy as opposed to relying on the international banking cartel.

What I can't figure out is why anyone would fight getting out of debt.  Nobody I know wants to have any debt, so when a solution comes along to get rid of the debt I just can't figure out why they won't fight tooth and nail for it.  If those people cared about their country, their friends, their family, or even themselves, they are going to get engaged and start fighting the only issue that really matters in our country, monetary reform.  The first best step solution is to pass the MTA because after it passes the entire nation will be able to see exactly how destructive debt money is to a society, and that debt money CANNOT compete with wealth money.

Think about this for a minute...our economy will eventually collapse from the burden of debt - I think we all see that coming.  If states had their own banks, or banking privileges, their citizens would have a much better chance of financial survival.  This could be a safety net at the very least.

In the United States we have a two tiered banking system.  We have federally chartered banks that are only responsive to the federal laws, and state chartered banks which are only responsive to the state laws.  States can regulate their banks to move debt free, wealth money into circulation it's just a question if the American people are either smart enough to demand that honest money be moved into circulation or if they have the guts to demand that one simple law, with one simple rule change is how 100% of the money is put on the books.  Once a person gets a grasp of the complete picture they will realize that we don't have any choice but to demand that our monetary system gets switched from an evidence of debt to an evidence of wealth.  Standing by expecting someone else to fix this system is not going to happen.  It's up to you.

The real tragedy of a depression is that jobs become scarce, businesses and people go bankrupt, mortgages are foreclosed on because there isn't enough money.  And as any of us should know from the CC, the exponential growth of interest debt is at the core of the problem.  If growth slows down or stops, the money supply begins to contract as debt is paid faster than new loans can be issued.  Injecting debt free money into the economy is a mathematically sound approach.

One thing Chris grasps very well is that exponential growth of interest bearing debt is unsustainable.  The problem we face with our monetary system not what we use for money, but the principles under which the money system functions.  If we have a monetary system that is designed to turn out a bad product, we get what we have today.  A money system that only works towards the benifits of the lenders, and to the complete destruction of the producers.  All we have to do is start passing laws(it's the only way it can be done) that put wealth money into circulation.  There is no other way to fix this problem.  We can all sit around in fighting about what we use for money, to much, to little, what they(the bankers) are going to do to us, pig flu, ect...ect...

Until we decide to excersize our true collective power and demand that laws like the Minnesota Transportation Act get passed we will never own our money and will always be at the complete disposal of the banking system.  This banking system is designed to steal everything from everyone, eventually.  In a few short years the interest alone at 6% on the total debt will be greater than the total consumer income.  The only way we are going to fix this monetary crisis is by putting debt free, wealth money into circulation so that the interest can be paid, and after the interest can be paid, so can the debt.  There is no other way.  Lets stop fighting each other(exactly what the banking system wants us to do) and start fighting this corrupt and imorral money system.  Lets demand that wealth money be introduced into circulation.  The Minnesota Transporation Act would litterally blow the cover off this entire banking system scam and would be the torch in the night to ignight real monetary change across the nation and free the people from this crushing debt.

There are two choices

1.  Do nothing, and watch your entire country be destroyed along with every generation after that. 

2. Become engaged.  Demand that the Minnesota Transportation Act be passed by putting as much pressure on the state legislators as possible.  Start taking your country back one law at a time.  The tools are available today in state action.

 

BTW, their idea is not new.  It has been done many times before (in various forms) through-out history with great success.

Larry

Lets make history.

goes211's picture
goes211
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 1114
Re: If the problem is too much money.....

DrKrbyLuv wrote

Well said.  I just don't get it...why is someone being attacked in such a personal way?  Especially one who is working hard and courageously along with Byron Dale to help people at least partially disconnect from what is coming our way via Washington and Wall Street.

It might have something to do with their constant repetition that the solution to every problem is the MTA.  They act like the old saying.

"To the man with a hammer, everthing looks like a nail"

Thomas wrote

My personal opinion is that people, especially the educated class have a very hard time admitting that they have been lied to and stolen from their entire lives. 

Or maybe it is their condecending attitude, that anyone that disagrees with with their opinion is closed minded.

JAG wrote

"Sorry Thomas if I was a little harsh in my criticism of you, as I know you had good intentions..."

Thomas responded

"I have a workable solution not good intentions."

Or possibly it is their precieved arrogance.

______________________________________

The real shame of the issue is that their are some interesting features of the MTA.  I do think that non-debt based money is a good thing.  I would also generally support most ideas that the current powers would consider a threat to their cozy/immoral system.

However, I don't necessarily subscribe to the philosophy that the enemy of my enemy is necessarily my friend.  The current system might consider the MTA a threat but I think it is severly flawed.  It is just another way for the state will create money out of nothing at my expense via inflation.  It will take a little from everyone and give to the people of Minnesota.  That might sounds good if you live in Minnesota but for the rest of us, no so much.

I think of it this way.  I am currenly a slave on FED's plantation.  I don't want to escape to be a slave on another plantation.  I want to escape from the current system so that I can be a free man.

 

Thomas Hedin's picture
Thomas Hedin
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 28 2009
Posts: 815
Re: If the problem is too much money.....

Well Thomas, at least now we're getting somewhere.  In a few more posts, we might actually know something.

Thomas Hedin wrote:

 

You continue to insist that government can produce money. 

Only you make this claim.  The MTA legally authorizes the State Chartered banks of Minnesota to create money the exact same why they do now (book keeping entry) and spend (instead of loan) money into circulation.

 

Thomas, as I stated already, if the government creates debt/money or if banks do it under authority of the government, what difference does it make?  Money/debt is being created out of thin air without regard to the supply of goods and services.  So long as the money supply is not related to goods and services, and any amount can be created at anytime, how is the specific source of this creation relevant?

 

 The author clearly does not understand that our government creates no money.  Not one penny or one dollar.  The only place money is created in our system is in private commericial banks.  Banks do not create money under the authority of the government.  Banks only create credit(which is what we use for money).  There is no such thing as money created out of thin air.  All the money(i'm calling credit money because that is what we use for money) we use is created when banks purchase a mortage on our property.  It's not created out of thin air, it's created as a mortgage on our property. The money supply is not even close to the related goods and services.  Just take a look at any local store.  SALE, 50% off, No Payments No Interest 6 months, ect ect......If one takes the time to look around them they can clearly see there is a shortage of money. 

Any amount cannot be created at any time.  The only amount of new debt that can be created is how much the people are willing and/or able to borrow.

The specific source of the creation of money is not releavant.  What is releavant is how new money is created.  If it's created as an interest bearing debt, then the economic laws work on the side of destruction.  If it's created as a wealth(not loaned but spent into circulation) then the economic laws work on the side of prosperity.

 Quote:

 If you believe that, then you must have a different definition of what money is than I do.  I firmly believe that money represents excess production.  

I believe money is just a tool to make barter simpler and more effective.  If money only represents excess production, why not all production?  Anything that we use for money only represents what we owe at the bank since the actual creation of money ALWAYS involves an extention of CREDIT by a private commercial bank.

 

If money is a tool to make barter simpler and more effective, then whoever creates money - be it government or banks, has tremendous power because that which they can create with a book-keeping entry can be traded for that which requires real labor, sweat, and resources to make.

The only way money can have power over another person after it is transfered is if it is loaned to that person because if I loan you something you have an obligation to perform for me or else.  If money is SPENT to someone their is a transfer of ownership and the new owner of the money will be able to do whatever they wish. 

We could trade the peoples labor, knowledge, and our natural resources and SPEND money into circulation for the benifit of society.  What more could you want?

  That is why I do not support any kind of make-believe money.  By allowing make-believe money, you are entrusting its creator with the power to steal from you.  What you produce costs work.  Producing make-believe money costs nothing.

The author seems to think we use make-believe money.  I'm unsure what he is talking about because this book keeping entry bank credit can purchase anything in the world.  The only way a creator of money can steal from anyone is by loaning it to them at interest because once time and interest kick in, the debt grows(becomes impossible to get out of debt to them) but the money supply does not.  The production of money may not cost anything but the process to move that money into circulation does, unless the author believes that human labor is free.

As for excess production vs. all production:  excess production is what is saved.  Everything else is consumed and ceases to exist.  Excess production is what we have available to trade, which as you stated earlier, forms the basis for barter, whose facilitation is the whole point of having money in the first place.  When money itself is a good, it becomes impossible for anyone to produce it without at the same time spending formerly-created money into the economy. 

Excess production can be saved that is true, but we don't use excess production for money.  When is the last time anyone produced excess anything and had it turn into money?  What the author does not understand is that it is impossible to have excess money is a debt money system because the very laws under which a debt money system operates gaurentees a shortage of money to the benifit of the banking system.

When money itself is a good, it becomes impossible for anyone to produce it without at the same time spending formerly-created money into the economy.

Here is a very mis-leading statement.  The only way money enters circulation is when a someone takes a loan from a private commercial bank.  That money is NOT SPENT into circulation it is LOANED into circulation.  Formally created money can be spent throughout the economy but in our system zero money is spent into circulation, it is only loaned into circulation.

Quote:

Anything that we use for money only represents what we owe at the bank since the actual creation of money ALWAYS involves an extention of CREDIT by a private commercial bank.

 

That is true of today's money.  It is not true of ALL money ALL the time.   

Since we are living right now today lets deal with the facts of todays money.  In our world today my statement is absolute fact.

Before the monopoly of make-believe money, real assets had to be deposited in real banks or warehouses.  The banks then issued receipts for those deposits and the receipts served as money.  The creation of that receipt, is not an extension of credit by the bank, it's evidence of the deposit the depositor with the bank, and evidence of the claim the depositor now holds against the bank.  So in those not-so-long-ago times, the credit extended was not what the depositor owed the bank - it was what the bank owed the depositor.  Value was created by the depositor first - by saving excess production in the form of grain, wheat, gold what have you.  That excess savings had to exist first before anything could be deposited in a bank and a receipt for real goods could be issued.

All money is a man made concept.  What the author does not realize is that all those receipts (except for the first one) where an evidence of interest bearing debts.  The first receipt went out at a wealth, following fractional lending all went out as an interest bearing debt.  The author does not understand that the banks promise to pay the deposit with that bank is credit.  What the author doesn't realize today is that all bank deposits are a form of credit and  represent what the bank owes the depositors. 

Value is purely a mental concept that is agreed upon by two seperate parties at any given point in time before a trade can be made possible. 

What the author fails to realize is that if their had been enough gold to work as a medium of exchange people would have never needed to borrow promises to pay from the bank on something the bank did not possess.  If the people had so much excess savings why would they have ever decided to borrow anything from the bank?  Why would someone want to borrow and pay interest on something they already had enough of?  This is why bankers love pushing gold, it's because they know there isn't enough of it to work as a general meduim of exchange, the people didn't want to use the gold for money because it's heavy and inconvenient, ect.  History proved to use time and time again that the people reject using gold for money, otherwise they would have never wanted the paper receipts in the first place.

Quote:

 

 

Since the government cannot produce anything - in fact, it itself is a product of excess production, it cannot produce money.  It subsists only upon the excess production of others, and excess production must exist in order to have money in the first place, and to create a government in the second place.

His entire idea that money represents excess production is wrong.  Money, in our system, only represents what we owe to the banking system.  The government could and should produce the money supply, but our banking system fights tooth and nail to make sure that doesn't happen.  All anyone has to do it read a little bit of history to see that our government has done it in the past.  Government is not a product of excess production.

 

Thomas, my idea that money represents excess production is not wrong!  That is exactly what money is!  The problem is that what we have today is NOT money!  As you correctly point out, these little pieces of paper we use today represent what we owe the banking system.  I agree with that.  I just do not consider that to be money.  What we use today is a fraud that has been very cleverly imposed upon us without more than a tiny fraction of us even realizing it.  If we are going to agree to a conventionalized medium of trade, the medium of trade must be a product that costs labor and resources itself.  Otherwise all you are doing is licensing someone or some group to steal from the rest of society.

Money only represents what we owe to the banking system.  We don't use paper for money, we use bank credit for money(numbers).  Federal Reserve Notes are clearly money by law, along with the coins issued by the US govt (which can only be obtained through the banking system).  Bank Credit (checking account entry) is not money.  It's credit(interest bearing debt).  Money is what you use to make final payment with and credit is what you owe.  Since the only way we move 'money' into circulation is via an extention of CREDIT we have no money in the system.  Hence our problem.

A medium of trade would be a highway system, a meduim of exchange would be what is used to enhance trading, not deliver the product.  The only way money can be used to steal from people is when it is created as an interest bearing debt owed to the creator of that money.  If we created final payment within the system, that money could only be used to enhance fair and honest trading.

As for government, it can only exist if a society produces more than it absolutely needs to survive.  Of course it only exists on the back of excess production.  The only other way for it to exist would be for it to confiscate production needed for survival (rather than excess production), essentially causing people to starve to death.   

Governments should only exsist for the simple reason of doing the things that an indivudual man cannot do himself.  A man cannot create a uniform transportation system, uniform monetary system, provide for the defence of his nation, ect......  His idea that a government can only exsist by confiscating production is wrong.  Governement should only exsist to do the things that an indivudual man cannot do on his own for the benifit of society.  This is typical propoganda that the government is to blame for all our problems when it's really the parasistic banking sytem and their ability to corrupt our court system, legislative branches, and executive branches through the powers that come with loaning all the money into circulation.  We have the greatest form of government ever invented, the problem is a criminal banking system has used they ability to create money as loans or investments to bribe our congress into passing laws that only benifit the elite(yuk).  The only way we are going to fix what is wrong with our society is through our government by passing laws to destroy the banking systems monopoly over the creation of money.

Governments only exsist through the creation of law.

Quote:

If I produced excess cars, corn, or haybails, that is not government. 

I'm not the one saying excess production is government.

Don't be silly.  Refer to what I just said in the prior point.

Quote:

The money can only exsist is somebody goes to a private commercial bank and takes out a loan.

 

Yes, today that is true.  You are misinterpreting my use of the term "money" to mean today's FRNs, which I do not consider to be money.  I will be more careful to distinguish between actual "money", which hasn't existed for almost 40 years, and FRNs.  In the future, when I refer to the present-day condition, I will use the term, "make-believe money", or if I am referring specifically to the US, I may use "FRNs".  Otherwise, whenever you see me uise the term "money", I am referring to real money.

FRN's are not created when someone takes out a loan from a private commerical bank. FRN's are not the true money in our system.  The true money is Bank Credit.  You may not consider FRN's to be money but the laws and the courts do.  I'm sorry, but they are clealy money.

Real money is anything that is declared money by law weather you want to believe that or not.

Quote:

 

 

Government can "fabricate" money it arbitrarilly devines value upon, if people give it the power to do so, and which we obviously have.   

Again the author believes that our government creates the money, at best it's false, at worse it's a complete lie.  The actual creation of money ONLY happens in private commercial banks.

 

 

Gimme a break.  I have said time and time again that it makes no difference whether the government creates it or if banks do so.  Further down in my post, I dedicate a whole paragraph to that.  The government authorizes the creation of money to a private cartel.  We let them do it.  There, is that better?

Again, the author ignore the fact that the government does not create any money whatsoever and asumes that the government has authorized banks to create money, which again is false.  There is no laws on the books allowing or prohibiting banks from creating money.  There is laws on the books stating that only the government can create FRN's and U.S. Coinage, but those are not money until they have been monetarized which only happens in private commerical banks.  What is more disturbing is that the author does not care if a private for profit bank issues the money as an interest bearing unpayable debt that only works towards the benifit of the banking system or if the government created and issued the money for the benifit of the people(as a debt free evidence of wealth).

Quote:

 

 

But this money exists only at the point of a gun. 

When was the last time a banker held you at gun point and forced you to sign a promissory note?

 

 

When was the last time you tried to pay your taxes in something other than FRNs?  Do you deny that attempting to do so will land you in court, in a case you will undoubtedly lose, and when they drag you to jail, there will be men with guns leading you there?

All my taxes get paid in check book money, not FRN's, so my answer is I never pay taxes with FRN's.  I think you would probably have a hard time paying your taxes with FRN's.  They might actually demand you pay with checking account money, but I'm unsure.  Just how would you pay the IRS with FRNs?  I personally wouldn't trust them enough to mail them cash.

The supreme court of the United States will not accept Federal Reserve Notes for court filing.  They only accept check book money, even though they tell us that we all have to accept FRNs for everything because they are legal tender for all debts PUBLIC and PRIVATE. 

Again the author clearly avoids the facts that money is our system only comes into creation when someone signs a promissory note and goes into debt to the banking system.  How we switched from money creation to taxes I'll never know.

Quote:

 

 

The police-force of the state, which by definition is founded upon violence against the individual, is used to enforce acceptance of these arbitrary units, and that is all these units are founded upon - violence against the individual producer, and in favor the collective leach, using the process of converting the product of individual members's production into pieces of paper it declares to be money, which it then spends to provide favor for the market players who produce little other than votes. 

 

What we use for money, Bank Credit (numbers in a checking account, which has to exsist first in order for the paper currency to exsist which can be purchased by destroying the checking account money) is not called money by any law.  The true money is our system is not the paper currency but the checking account (demand deposit) bank credit.  We simply do not use paper for money, we use bank credit(numbers).  These arbitary units are all court enforceable.

 

Completely irrelevant to my point.  As I have been saying, the arbitrary creation of money, or bank credit, is used to collect the product of individual production into pieces of paper or entries of credit that cost nothing to produce.  Again, it makes no difference who creates it or what you call it.  In the end, it is a process by which those who control it by doing nothing, control the rest of us, who do everything.

If it makes no difference who creates the money and how it's moved into circulation(debt or wealth) then why are we having a monetary crisis?

Quote:

 

 

The fact our particular brand of money is technically created by a private banking cartel, and not the actual government, is inmaterial to this discussion. 

The author and me agree here, at this point in time I could care less who creates the money, what I care about is the principles under which our money functions.  Wealth -vs- debt.  I own -vs- I owe.  Does it really matter where the money comes from but the principles under which money functions?  Who gets the benifit of the creation of the money.

 

If you care about what you "own", then why would you be in favor of a system that allows a State access to use unlimited amounts of money to fund projects? 

The author fails to realize that the MTA wouldn't allow the State to access unlimited amounts of money, it would allow the people to access a debt free medium of exchange which would allow the people to pay off their debts.  What he also doesn't realize is that when all money is loaned to you, you do not own the means of your production. 

WIth that money, the State will employ labor that would otherwise be involved producing something else. 

What the author fails to realize is that this money would be used to benifit soceity and that all the employeement would still be done through private companies.

It will consume resources that could have been available elsewhere. 

Shouldn't we be putting our resources to use to benifit and enhance mankinds standard of living?  I'm unsure why he is resistant to a better standard of living.

Everything you wish to "own" will become more expensive, and everything you earn will acquire less.  The make-believe-money itself will no longer be a debt - OK, fine.  I can see how that makes a difference.  I wouldn't use those make-beleive-notes myself for savings purposes because they are as worthless as what we have now, but I am glad the banks will not be earning any interest on it.  Cheerio.

The author either thinks that an increase in debt makes products cheaper or that to much money is our problem, or both.  He also doesn't realize that a Note is an evidence of debt.  There will be no creation of Notes with the MTA.

Quote:

 

What you are proposing is the creation of money by government, and what I am contesting is that your system would be no different than what we have now in almost all respects. 

The author claims that I am advocating having the government create our money supply with the passage of the MTA.  This is a complete lie.  What I am advocating is a legal authorization for the state chartered banking system(the exact same source as the money comes from now) to invest in the states permanant infrastructure, free from debt, all based on wealth, which will allow the interest to be paid on the loans.  Currently right now banks can create money by offering loans or inventsments.  So right now banks can create money by loaning it to you, or by spending it on whatever they want to.  The only change I'm advocating is one small change in the genisis of the creation of money.

 

If government is not involved in the creation of make-believe-money here, then why does this Bill need to pass the legislature?  Sure, the government would not itself be creating this make-believe-money, not after they pass the bill that authorizes the creation of make-believe money!  LOL!  That's like saying the US Congress has nothing to do with the creation of FRNs because they only authorized creation of the animal that creates them, but do not do any of the actual issuance themselves.

Because the only way laws get passed is though legislature, and only by passing laws are we going to fix what is wrong with our money system.  FRNs are 100% created by the Beauru of Engraving and Printing.  That is the only agency allowed to print them.  The government does not issue them directly to the public, FRN's can only be obtained through the banking system.

Quote:

 

 

Therefore, when I refer to our existing system, and the "government" behind it, I do so conscious of the fact that although it is not the actual government, but a private banking cartel licensed by the government, that detail is irrelevant to what what I see as completely wrong with both the existing system and your proposed system.

Here the author claims that I am trying to change the system, which is blatently false.  What I'm advocating is debt free money to be spent into circulation.  The only differnce with this money is that it can be used to pay the interest on the borrowed money, allowing people to have to money to make their house payments, keep their businesses running ect.....all while building a better infrastucture for the people of Minnesota, which can be used by all the people in the state of minnesota (benificial to everyone).

 

Don't see how you got that from the paragraph you quoted, but I'll address this anyway.  Of course you are changing the system - why would the State need to pass a new Bill if they weren't?  How can "What I am advocating is debt-free money" and "I am not trying to change the system" exist in the same mind? 

All we are trying to do is change one simple rule in how all money is created.  The system in and of itself clearly functions, why would we want to get rid of any of that?

Anyway, I am not against this Bill because of the introduction of "debt-free money".  I am all for debt-free-money.  What I am against is make-believe money.  What this Bill would bring is debt-free-make-believe-money as opposed to debt-issued-make-believe-money. 

The only make believe money I've seen is monopoly money.  How can anyone call this make believe money if you can purchase anything you want with it?

Quote:

 

One thing you have not explained, at least to my satisfaction, is the concept of interest-free money.  That is illogical and unsustainable as far as I can see.  Would it then be illegal for one person to rent his property to another?  If not, then why would one asset, real estate, be treated differently than another asset, money (which you would make illegal to rent)? 

What the author either cannot or will not accept is the idea of debt free money.  I own -vs- I owe.  What he refused to accept is that it is impossible for us to borrow ourselves our of debt and into prosperity.  I'm unsure where he came up with the idea that it's illegal to rent property unless he means that the banking system rents our property to us, which isn't true either, they loan us a promise to pay, that they never have to make good on.  I.E. They loan us money they do not have and are the only source of 'money'. 

 

I originally thought you were opposed to all interest-bearing loans.  By this response, I take it that you are not. 

The author has never taken the time to study interest or the effects it has on a soceity. 

You are only concerned with interest on make-believe money when it originates but are OK with it afterwards, can be my only conclusion.  If that is the case, then how is it decided how much make-believe-money needs to be issued? 

There will be no creation of make believe money.  But the people will be the ones deciding how much money will be created to satisfy their commerce needs.

Interest rates normally impose a cost, or penalty, on borrowing and spending.  Since the type of make-believe-money you are advocating would have no cost, then what, if anything, would serve to limit the amount spent into existence? 

Does the author really believe that human labor is free?

Another question:  If the government has access to all the make-believe-money it needs or wants, every private borrower is going to try and go through government to obtain make-believe-money, would they not? 

The people would have access to a debt free meduim of exchange.  I'm starting to think that the author is the only person I've ever seen that really wants to get really deep in debt.  Why would anyone want to have money loaned to them when they would have the option to actually EARN money into circulation.

I mean, why borrow make-believe-money from a bank when, if there is someway to get a government contract, you can get debt-free-make-believe-money from them? 

Starting to see the light?

Yet a third question:  Given that with today's make-believe-money, government is the main borrower, and given that with your scheme of make-believe-money the government will never have to borrow again, would it be fair to conclude that there is going to be far less demand to borrow from savings accumulated by the private sector?  Would there be any point at all for anyone to save, ever?

Government is not the main borrower.  Private business in our system is the main borrower.  Around 37 trillion in debt I think the private business sector is, but don't quote me on that.

If money was SPENT in people would actually have a source of money they could earn and save, without having someone have to go into debt or be finacially hurt.

Quote:

 

We practically had interest-free money this whole decade.  That didn't work out so well, and I don't see how any system that makes the cost of money zero or close to zero could possibly avoid bubbles in one asset class or another. 

100% of the money we use came into exsistance through an interest bearing loan.  I'm unsure where the author is getting his infomation but where ever he is getting it, it's completely false.

 

It's "totally" false that we "practically had interest-free money this whole decade"?  I guess that depends on youre definitions of "totally" and "practically".  I call near-zero-interest rates "practically" zero.  Since "practically" means "almost", it's totally meaningless to use the term "totally false" in reference to a claim that is purposefully couched in a subjective and indeterminate term such as "practically", isn't it?

Quote:

 

 

How would savings be encouraged in your system, if there were no return upon the savings due to zero interest?

What I would like the author to explain is how can anyone save when the only way they can get any money into circulation is by borrowing it.?

Can you borrow 100 dollars from a bank (the only way money goes into circulation right now) pay back 110 dollars (the principle plus the interest) and keep 10 for yourself without having someone else go deeper into debt?

 

Thomas, even though we have a debt-based-make-beleive-money system, individual participants still can save.  You are 100% correct that every credit is a debit somewhere else and that they all have to add to zero.  In aggregate, our make-believe-debt-based-money system is equal to zero.  No arguments there.

My question remains however:  If there is no return upon savings in your debt-free-make-believe money system, why would anyone bother?

It's currently impossible to save in our system.  If we put debt free money into circulation savings could actually happen.  The author does not address how interest works and how savings increase.

Quote:

 

These are just some of the basic questions that come to mind when contemplating what you have still mostly refused to explain.  I appreciate the links you have provided, but I am not going to read them until you can provide, in layman's language, a brief summary of what I am going to find there. 

I've provided everything in layman's language but he refuses to read any of it.  I'm beginning to believe that the author is following a belief system rather than factual study.  It appears he lacks any desire to actually understand our monetary system.

 

LOL!  Thomas, until this post, you have refused to answer any questions.  Now we are finally approaching what may pass for a conversation or a debate.  Until now, all you've done is posed condescending questions and played word games with people when you know perfectly well what they mean.  I welcome your decision to finally debate and will leave it at that.

If you want to debate then join us this Sunday on our tele-conference.  Go to www.themoneytalkshow.com for the phone number and access code. 

Quote:

 

 

Our current system does not work because its all based on interest bearing debt and once time and interest kick in the debt grows but the money supply does not.  It's very simple math.

I don't know how much more more of laymans terms our monetary system can be explained by than the following quotes.

4 Of the Most Important Quotes in Economics:

1. “…the actual creation of money always involves the extension of credit by private commercial banks.”
- Russell L. Munk, Assistant General Counsel, Department of the Treasury

2. “Money is created when loans are issued and debts incurred; money is extinguished when loans are repaid.”
- John B. Henderson, Senior Specialist in Price Economics, Congressional Research Service, Report No. 83-125 E

3. “Thus, the money that one borrower uses to pay interest on a loan has been created somewhere else in the economy by another loan.”
- John M. Yetter, Attorney-Advisor, Department of the Treasury

4. “Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless position is almost incredible, but there it is. It is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon.”
- Robert H. Hemphill, Credit Manager of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta

 

Think about it.

First, we have to borrow, just to have a medium of exchange.

Then, we have to borrow to pay the interest that is due on the initial borrowed money.

Q: Wouldn't that make it impossible to get out of debt?

A: That is obvious.

 

Everything we have (excluding cosmic debris) comes from the Earth.  As we produce, we create wealth; we do not create money as we produce. That only happens at a bank. Now, money only comes into being when someone, an individual, business or government, takes out a loan.  It's true that gold, silver, platinum and diamonds are forms of wealth (wealth = raw resources + labor + innovation) but we don't use wealth for money.  We use debt. The Minnesota Transportation Act (MTA) will introduce a stream of wealth-based money into the economy to allow people to pay off their debt. Bank default rates will decline and our economy will stabilize. We can't grow money and we don't mine it either.  We borrow it.  Our money is not wealth - it's debt.

 

 

Thomas, you do not need to convince anyone here, certainly not me, that the current system is flawed, nor do you need to explain why.  We all know debt-based money doesn't work, regardless of whether it's debt-based real money or debt-based-make-believe-money. 

However, what you are failing to even recognize, despite all the layman's term sin the world that not only I but others have put forth, is:

 

How is the supply of debt-free-make-believe-money controlled?!  That is the underlying question.  You have never answered it, and I'm pretty sure it's because neither you nor Byron Dale has one.   The system you propose eliminates the problem of interest-at-issuance.  Bravo.  It does nothing to address the problem inherent in all make-believe-money schemes - the uncontrolled abuse of the system thorugh make-believe-money creation, leading to hyperinflation and self-destruction.

Cloudfire's picture
Cloudfire
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 29 2008
Posts: 1813
In the Interest of Time Management

Here's the thing, Thomas;

I no longer read your posts because you have yet to show that you'll engage in dialogue in a way that shows that you can listen, hear others' questions, and respond to them.  You know one tune, and you keep humming it.  You lost me way back when you came onto the site, with your cryptic questions, condescending attitude, and nonresponse responses.  I am now just annoyed that I have to repeatedly navigate to a thread that I'm following because I am interested in that subject matter, only to find you there, droning on about the MTA, again.  Do me a favor . . . start a thread about the MTA, since that's what you want to discuss, and confine your repetitions to that thread. 

This is not personal, at all . . . It is a matter of time management.  The only thing I dislike more than having my money wasted is having my time wasted.  It is just plain inconsiderate to waste peoples' time.  When you're inconsiderate over and over again, people get annoyed.  It's a simple linear relationship.

-- C1oudfire, over and out.

 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments