Because…oh wait. It doesn’t matter. Money-as-debt cranks like you just won’t get it through your thick skulls. You see conspiracies around every corner. You blame private enterprise for the faults of government. You refuse to believe that something could be a quasi-government agency. You ignore the fact that the federal reserve’s board of governors is appointed by the federal government. In short: you’ve rejected reality and substituted some grand conspiracy on the order of the mafia killing JFK for whatever loony reason, or (and this is a true story in the sense that someone actually said it): Richard Nixon had John Lennon assassinated because he knew that 20 years later, Lennon would be one of the first to speak out against the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. I kid you not–someone actually said that.
Reality is a great place, and you really need to inhabit it.
I agree with your well-worded point that the Fed would not exist without “government support and privilege.” Creating money is an opportunity afforded only to sovereign nations - but as you suggest - it may be delegated in the form of a monopoly.
I yield to your point.
Where we seem to separate is in the bigger question - who creates the money. Someone famous once said (I forget who, and no doubt my memory will butcher their words) “there are two powers of a state, the power of the sword and the power of the purse…the power of the purse will always control the power of the sword.”
Why do you think making the Fed completly inhouse to the government will change things. Do you think it will be any less secretive? Do you think it can afford to? A state run federal reserve will be just as fallacious as a ‘private one’ for all of the same ethical and economical reasons.
Your solution is synonymous with the problem. That is why we don’t think you understand banking and credit.
Can you describe for me the best mobile media player? Is it ipod? Is it Zune? Creative’s Zen? Can you tell me tell me what will be the best media player in the future? Can you tell me what was the best media player in the past? No? Well what you can at least tell me is what was the most widely used media player? It may not have been the best but it was certainly the most widely used.
Do you think it is a fallacy to assume to know what the best type of media player is? If you agree, then I tell you that it’s the same fallacy to assume to know what the best unit of exchange is.
Why does it matter to you? And should it matter? Are you really so stubborn as to be unable to let go and think for yourself? Are you so ignorant of the possibilities of trade that you willingly refuse to think? Are you so illiterate that you are unable to read what I and others have posted before?
It’s time you got a healthy dose of wake-your-ass-up-and-smell-the-nonsense-you’re-shovelling.
The private sector would mint the money. In all likelihood (though this is my personal opinion), money would be gold and silver for large and small transaction respectively. This is just based off an observation of history, and it may be that either only gold or only silver circulates. However there is nothing sacred about gold or silver. It’s more than possible that people would use some other medium of exchange and ultimately the market would choose the one (or perhaps several) best suited for the job; that is people would use the currency they believed served their ends best. Assuming it would be gold, the mining companies would sell the gold to minting companies (or they might be the same company) who could then spend the money into circulation or loan it to a bank or something like that. It’s even possible that the mining, minting, and banking operations could fall under one company. Only the market can decide whether that is efficient or not.
there was one with 69 pages and 1361 posts, I believe. it is in the thread graveyard. i don’t even want to say it’s name. others that know may want to. it got long and nutty…lol it lasted for over a month.
Yes, I think it is possible to have a transparent and accountable economic system. We do it in the private sector by using the accrual basis of accounting (itemize future liabilities) but somehow, inexplicably, we use the cash basis of accounting for the greatest economic entity in the world. The only reason government is unaccountable is that we allow it to be.
How is a system thats not accountable in any of it’s activity going to make an exception in banking and credit? How are you going to make people make the government be accountable? You reveal your socialist Utopian identity and ignorance in economics and human action.
Yea, it really does matter. If the government creates all money then the wealth of the nation can be added without increasing the debt of the nation. You assume that money must be created, at profit, by private banks.
As long as we depend on the international banking cartel (yup, they control the Fed) to issue and control our money, then we will be a “client state” to that degree. Do you think it is a coincidence that we are losing our freedoms? Money rules.
I admit that I have missed most of the debate, and so perhaps I am missing something that was mentioned before, but you seem to be mistaking money for wealth. And, you seem to mistake the idea that the profit that banks would make from currency would be in the currency itself, as opposed to the customers they would attract with their currency (that is, a stable currency, or one that deflates due to increases in productivity due to capital accumulation). But, the point is that money is not wealth, and so creating more money does not create more wealth.
I don’t think Baawa said that. Don’t put words in people’s mouths. What you assume is that money needs to be created at all.
On a side note, if a good or service is created and does not receive profit it is wasting the resource pool of the globe as a whole. Again you know nothing of economics. Thats not an assumption, it’s apparent when you make economic statements in ignorance.
You seem to add a new conspiracy with each post. At any rate I always looked at the IMF as being a follower of the fed.
There is a huge benefit to be realized in the sovereign power to issue and control a national monetary system. I agree that money should not be viewed as wealth. Assets and holdings accumulate as wealth, money is just an exchange.
Your theories are riven with fallacies, but you’ve been civil and mature. I regret that others here have not reciprocated, and have resorted to name-calling and the like. In doing so, they’ve managed to make a superior position look weak and flailing, and your fundamentally false position appears strong and serene in comparison. I hope you will give The Mystery of Banking by Murray Rothbard and The Theory of Money and Credit by Ludwig von Mises a read, because we could use someone like you in our camp.
Again, what does money have to do with wealth? Money does not create transactions, nor does it create wealth, but rather is employed (or should be) solely as a media of exchange which makes the acquisition of wealth an easier endeavor. Credit transactions, for the 1000th time, involves purchasing and selling one’s time through the transfer of savings; it is a real economic phenomena, and it doesn’t lead to the end of the world.
We’re losing our freedoms because people like you, for whatever reason, worship the government. When the government kills thousands in some far away hell hole, you blame the ‘free market.’ As if markets would waste their time producing worthless spy jets and submarines. When the government nationalizes the banking system in order to finance its spending, it’s the fault of demonic bankers and the market.
If they control the government, then they ARE the government. It’s a monopoly - who controls whom within that monopoly doesn’t matter. I think you’re hung up on the idea that bankers are “unelected” where are politicians are elected. Am I right?