How about we examine the effects of interest?
What is the Austrian theory on interest?
I’m less conserned about theory and more conserned about actual effects.
Unfortunatly there is very, very few people who examine the effects of interest like Byron Dale has. I know my college economics courses never taught me anything about the effects of interest.
I did not hop in the thread because I disagree with the free market. Clearly the problem is government monopoly but am still not following the argument money is not debt based.
If Americans decided to withdraw FRN’s from their deposit accounts tomorrow and the system collapsed holders of FRN’s have a first lien against the assets of the Federal Reserve Bank and holders of the remaining depositor accounts are reliant upon the FDIC.
The Federal Reserve Bank is primarily holding Treasury Securities. The FDIC is primarily holding cash/investments. Neither the Federal Reserve Bank nor the FDIC have assets on their balance sheets that could redeem all of the FRN’s and deposit accounts other than obligations.
You should read what happened when Byron Dale sued the F.R. to make good on their notes and what the court said that the private banking system doesn’t have to make good on their notes.
I asked you, because we are on a website devoted to Austrian economics, a school of thought that considers interest a very important economic phenomenon, and yet because you are unaware of Austrian theory, you can’t actually discuss whether or not the Austrians have valid points or not.
Including you it seems, since you are unaware of Austrian theories on interest, and thus have no baseline to compare Dale’s ideas against.
Evasive manoeuvre. Answer or admit to ignorance.
“If Americans decided to withdraw FRN’s from their deposit accounts tomorrow and the system collapsed holders of FRN’s have a first lien against the assets of the Federal Reserve Bank and holders of the remaining depositor accounts are reliant upon the FDIC.”
if what i have read at economagic.com is true about money supply figures…there is about 900 billion of currency in circulation (physical cash in other words) and there is about 7.3 trillion of m2 minus the Currency in circulation.
i doubt americans would rush out to banks to grab cash they cant get only to pile up at the various bank branches.
i guess some federal money-printing-digitizing agency would, with a few hassles, make accounts right, bail outs or what have you.
as long as the electricity is on somewhere the digits will keep being exchanged i suppose.
unless there really is some basis that can be shown that a commodity metal money (perhaps electronically transferred) would benefit great multitudes beyond what economic hiccups (and perhaps some prices that outpace the wages of many) occur now with the paper currency-credit combo that occurs now it probobly doesnt mean a whole lot that much of the money is an obligation for money.
but i am wary of banks because i dont fully understand them.
tomozope wrote:
How about we examine the effects of interest?
http://www.wealthmoney.org/media/ByronDale001.mp3
Byron Dale does an excellent job in explaining exponential growth of debt from interest. I am anxious to hear comments from others regarding his presentation.
Mr. Dale has proposed the Minnesota Transportation Act and I think we should all become familiar with he is suggesting. I think he has the best solution that I have so far found. One thing I really like about his proposal is that it de-centralizes the the control and issuance of money.
His plan stops the subjugation of Washington while ending the usury of Wall Street.
Larry
liberty student wrote:
we are on a website devoted to Austrian economics, a school of thought that considers interest a very important economic phenomenon, and yet because you are unaware of Austrian theory, you can’t actually discuss whether or not the Austrians have valid points or not.
How can we discuss economics without discussing the math behind the theories and axioms? My original point was that from what I understand about Austrian economics, there is no accounting for the exponential growth of interest debt. If I am incorrect, please refer me to the appropriate area where this is addressed.
If I am breaking a rule by questioning Austrian theories, let me know, I can quietly find the door.
Larry
There is nothing to account for.
Are you familiar with the theories and axioms of AE? Are you aware of the use of math in AE?
There is no accounting for it, because it is the result of badly understood monetary theory.
That’s not the case. I wish you were questioning Austrian theories, but you and your friend are avoiding discussing AE, and just link dropping Byron Dale over and again. Please do start questioning AE.
There is no math behind the theories and axioms of Austrian School, but that doesnt mean there is no logic, quite the opposite.
This might help:
Something tells me our friends who challenge Austrian theories with math, have packed up their calculators and gone home.
Holler at me to return when their mathematical models can predict human action.
This is truly what this debate is about -whether or not mathematics is capable of describing human action.
I feel like we just got hit with a Byron Dale informercial…
I thought the subject had something to do with Austrian Economic Theory. Oh well…
Math can’t take the infinite amount of variables that create human action, and with these variables, mathematically predict what the human action is,was, and will be.