Unbelievable. This is coming from a guy making a post on the internet…
does your ‘paycheck’ get sent electronically?
does the information here get sent electronically?
i thought the point was that title to gold or silver or commodity could be sent electronically?
should a new thread on this issue be started?
Just the numbers do, but my check still arives via the postal system.
how many wire transfers or direct deposits take pale with in the banking system?
again, i thougt is was title to gold, or in the case we have, various types of clearing and settling functions within the banks that allow for claims to ‘cash’ often many miles away.
isnt that reality?
Ok that article clearly states that the people do not actually meet at a said location, they just use their computer to access work from at home, coffee shops ect…Again the pyhsical object is not transfered.
You can’t wire/email/photocopy/ any physical objects. Anything that is consists of any known chemical substance can only be moved via transportation.
The only think I’m thinking now is that maybe you should try reading this magazine because it’s probably more at your level of thinking. I’m sure you’ll find lots of people to communicate with who will agree with everything you say.
Millions upon millions every day.
The reality is banks do not deal in/with gold anymore. It was demonetized over 70 years ago. If you want to get some cash out of your bank you would have to go there and draw down on your checking account and purchase those bills and in order for any of those numbers to exsist somebody, somewhere in the system had to go into debt.
If you actually did some research you would know that banks actually do hold assets, the fed included. Many of them have been over-invested in mortgages and real estate and thats just one puzzle peace of our previous bust.
If banks could just monetize all their obligations they would not fail. We would also have had much stronger inflation than we have been seeing.
How do you explain this list I have posted for you twice now?
I’m going to go out on a limb and assume I’ve read a bit more about the subject than you. Seeing as you cannot even accurately define the word “Economics”.
I’m not interested in talking about economics, I’m interested in talking about how our monetary system works. But here is the definition of economics for you.
(used with a singular verb) the science that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services, or the material welfare of humankind.
or would you preffer the financial dictionary definition?
The study of how people use their limited resources in an attempt to satisfy unlimited wants.
Banks do hold assests, as a matter of fact the banking system has a mortgage on all the property in the USA.
Banks do monetize all their obligations, but as a debt to the people and an asset to the banking system. The banks do not have to honor their obligations. Banks fail because SOME banks (not all) have to write off their “losses” (which they don’t have because they never actually loan anything) on their books. When people default on their loans certain banks have to deduct that loss off their income, when those losses exceed their income they are insolvent and out of business. I can assure you this is no law, just a rule within the banking system, and from everything I can tell this rule does not apply to the very top banks. This rule only exsists for the big banks to be able to wipe out all their competition by shutting down the money supply.
Monetization as a wealth is a really good thing, and is needed. That kind of inflation is good because if we could bring that kind of money into circulation it could be used to destroy both principle and interest reducing the total interest bearing indebitness.
Monetization as a debt is the poision that is ruining our country. All these businesses didn’t go out of business because they had to much money, nor did the people quit paying their mortgages because they had too much money. Isn’t it becoming obvious that we can’t borrow ourselves out of debt?
sthomper wrote:
i was responding to an earlier statement about an insufficient quantity of gold needed to operate a vast complex economy that exists today.
as for the 250 million ounces claim…right...i dont know if that is all federal reserve controlled or managed according to congressional/us treasury dictate or if it just sits around and looks pretty. or why gold would even figure into any federal reserve activities - if the pumping mechanism that i read about is true…the gold would seem to have an almost nonexistent effect on money and credit inflation.
_________________________
I think that at best, the U.S. has 3,100 metric tonnes of gold. This is far short of the 8,100 metric tonnes that the government reports to the World Gold Council - http://www.research.gold.org
The discrepancy shows up in a USGS report. “The United States Geological Survey [USGS] publishes monthly Mineral Industry Surveys designed to provide a macro-import/export-overview of the U.S. precious metals [gold] industry. Over the course of 2007 / 2008 more than 5,000 metric tonnes of “Gold Compounds” have been exported from the United States of America representing more than 62 % of reported sovereign U.S. gold reserves.” The sovereign U.S. gold reserve has not been independently audited since the 1950’s during the Eisenhower Administration. GATA’s freedom of information requests are all about ensuring that the 8,100 metric tonnes of U.S. sovereign gold is still owned by the U.S. In April, 2008 the Federal Reserve responded to GATA’s request, releasing hundreds of pages of worthless information with significant portions redacted." (here’s a link to the above - http://www.chrismartenson.com/forum/us-gold-going-or-completely-gone/19889
If this is true, over 5,000 metric tonnes of gold are missing which would leave us with at most, 3,100 tonnes. At $1,100 per troy onuce, the theft would represent around $180 billion dollars. The remaining 3,100 tonnes, valued at $1,100 / troy ounce, would come to just under $110 billion.
How do we back a $15 trillion money supply (M3) with $110 billion in gold?
Gold could be used in a complimentary currency but even if all of the gold were used - it would account for around 0.07% of our total money supply.
Larry
nirgrahamUK wrote:
Ok; we have heard enough of your ‘critiques’; your reasonable ones mixed up with you ridonculous ones.
what exactly is your positive program? what are you ‘for’ ?
Good question, and the short answer is that I’m for real monetary reform.
- END the FED, all new money should be issued by the government. The money could be free of debt (from the government’s perspective) to eliminate any national debt.
- Banks could borrow the money they lend to the private sector from the government. For example, they could be charged 1%. The new revenue stream would eliminate the need for federal income tax and “fractional lending” would no longer happen.
- Banks could mark up the interest or they could be compensated by transaction fees.
- If interest is charged, the exponential function would increase the debt and expand the gap between money and debt as discussed earlier. This problem could be resolved by having debt free money directly spent into the economy for infrastructure projects. I’d prefer it be done on the State level - to “decentralize” the system. A good example of this is Byron Dale’s proposed MTA
I also have some ideas as to how we can greatly reduce the current monetary crisis:
- We owe the private Federal Reserve around $4.5 trillion dollars. I suggest the Treasury create the money for free, then send it electronically to the Federal Reserve. I’d call them to tell them it’s coming then, it would appear on their computer screen - and it would extinguish our debt - it would simply cease to exist. This could be deflationary as our money supply would be reduced by the same amount. To counter, I’d suggest some debt free money be injected to the money supply in building infrastructure.
- Government internal debt is around $6 trillion dollars - that is debt owed to social security, medicare and government pensions. This debt is unfair as we the people are effectively creditors and debtors to the same money. I suggest the Treasury create the money for free, to repay this debt.
- I would make 0% loans available to reduce our energy usage. Home and building owners could use the money to upgrade their mechanical and electrical systems. The criteria could be that to qualify, it must be shown that energy use would be reduced by 50%. Banks could handle the transactions and be compensated through fees. This might include new doors, windows and insulation with a higher “R” value. HVAC systems could be upgraded, for example inefficient furnaces could be replaced with geothermal heat pumps that operate at 250-400% efficiency.
- “We the People” insure mortgages through Fannie and Feddie - since we ultimately back these loans, we should own them and reap the benefits along with the liabilities. At the end of 2007, there were around $14.5 trillion in mortgages. I would create this money debt free through the Treasury and buy the mortgages - paying only the outstanding principal. To qualify, homes and buildings would have to be appraised at 120% of the mortgage. A low interest rate could be used, maybe 3%, to reduce the monthly mortgage payments while simultaneously creating revenue for the government to eliminate all taxes.
There are many creative things that we can do by taking back the issuance and control of our money.
Larry
It’s very clear here that you nor Tom have any idea in the slightest on what your talking about and if you got all this information from Byron Dale than I would tell you to stop listening to his nonesense and start cracking open books.
The only thing worse than a zealot is one who realizes he is as such and refuses to learn the truth. Read a book, I beg you.
You guys are espoused to so much intellectual dishonesty it’s hard to even respond int he midst of your incoherent rambling. It’s hard to take anything you have seriously. The reason why I asked Tom what a good economy is was to prove a point on his understanding of economics. His response proves that he can’t see past Byron’s rhetoric and that he has done no research of his own.
Another one of the falsehoods espoused here was that we ran out of gold and that history proved this. Such a radical claim was not sited of coarse. HIstory did not prove this in fact and we still have plenty of gold and silver.
On a free market we can only speculate what unit of exchange would become desirable to consumers. Whos to say it will be only one type? Such speculations are naive. Lending money is a legitimate market function just as selling banana’s is. I tried to tell this to Tom earlier but he went on some incoherant rant about dept paying off dept which was entirely un-related to my point.
In a closed system the lending of money does not necessarily create new money, but it borrows from the moneystock of the people. An honest bank may allow depositors an option to open a specific savings account where they earn interest on their money. They do this with the understanding that their money may not always be withdrawable as the banks lend it out. Normal checking accounts from the honest bankers would not lend out checking depositors money. So consumers have an intensive to allow the banks to lend money, its just not done so without their consent or behind their back.
The interest earned in this type of bank account does NOT come from new magically created money as you argue. It comes from the bank charging the lendee the service of offering a loan. To someone who takes a loan they value 1000 now more than 1100 later. It may be that they have an investment that will pay off more than the 10% interest or whatever. This 10% is paid to the bank from the lendee out of his own personal moneystock.
No new money is made. Only money is transfered for payment on various services. You guys need to get back to the fundamentals of monetary theory. You have so many ridiculous and obsured theory’s floating around in your head that your own arguments are inconsistent with reality.
Monetary Crisis? Your posting on an Austrian Economics forum. Do you know what the Business Cycle is?
We don’t. We either default on debts or revalue the dollar so that it works out. But such is not the fault of a gold standard; such is the fault of fiat currency.
Oh god, what a mess.
The fed isn’t exactly private. It’s a federally-mandated cartel of quasi-federal banks. You should know that if you have done even the slightest bit of research.
So you don’t object to monetary central planning, you just want the government to centrally plan it without the central bank it created. Your proposal, then, consists of having the government literally print around 25 trillion dollars (I guess they could make 1 million dollar bills) and start handing it out to various bankrupt socialist institutions, monetizing their own debt. At the same time, you want them to eliminate the entire banking system and set some sort of interest rate without the loanable funds market. Meaning, whenever someone demanded credit, the government would just print the money and give it to them at some entirely arbitrary interest rate. So the objection here is aimed towards the new and modern ways the government centrally plans the monetary system and efficiently debases the currency. I take it that you don’t object to legal tender laws at all, that is, government coercion towards those who demand sound money they actually value. Such a claim could only be made by someone who is entirely ignorant of every single economic principle, one who misunderstands any notion of equilibrium, value, and the purpose of the price mechanism. Your proposals would send us back to a time before civilization, when people depended on hunting and gathering for their own subsistence.
"For the naive mind there is something miraculous in the issuance of fiat money. A magic word spoken by the government creates out of nothing a thing which can be exchanged against any merchandise a man would like to get. How pale is the art of sorcerers, witches, and conjurors when compared with that of the government’s Treasury Department! " -Ludwig von Mises
I’ve already refuted your whole ‘interest-paradox’ argument. Get off youtube and start reading books.
bravo Mr Esuric
filc wrote:
In a closed system the lending of money does not necessarily create new money, but it borrows from the moneystock of the people. An honest bank may allow depositors an option to open a specific savings account where they earn interest on their money. They do this with the understanding that their money may not always be withdrawable as the banks lend it out. Normal checking accounts from the honest bankers would not lend out checking depositors money. So consumers have an intensive to allow the banks to lend money, its just not done so without their consent or behind their back.
_____________________
What percentage of loans do you think are handled this way? I’d be surprised if banks were lending depositors money for even 1% of their loans. You suggest that I “espouse to so much intellectual dishonesty” but it is you who doesn’t understand the mechanics of money in our system.
Robert Hemphill, past Manager of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta stated:
"If all the bank loans were paid no one would have a bank deposit and there would not be a dollar of coin or currency in circulation. This is a staggering thought. We are completely dependent on the commercial banks.
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 (the banking problem) is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon. It is so important that our present civilization may collapse unless it becomes widely understood and the defects remedied very soon."
And here is a quote from the Congressional Research Service:
“Money is created when loans are issued and debts incurred. Money is extinguished when loans are repaid.”
_____________________
filc wrote:
Monetary Crisis? Your posting on an Austrian Economics forum. Do you know what the Business Cycle is?
_____________________
You are completely wrong in suggesting that our monetary crisis is the result of any “business cycle.” It is the result of a monetary system that is a scam, a ponzi scheme - it is mathematically flawed; it was designed to fail. I’ve already documented the exponential growth of debt and explained why our debt based system cannot be sustained. Eventually, we will collapse in debt and we are getting close to that terminal point.
Larry
-
“If all the bank loans were paid no one would have a bank deposit and there would not be a dollar of coin or currency in circulation. This is a staggering thought. We are completely dependent on the commercial banks. 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 (the banking problem) is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon. It is so important that our present civilization may collapse unless it becomes widely understood and the defects remedied very soon.”
-
“Money is created when loans are issued and debts incurred. Money is extinguished when loans are repaid.” – Congressional Research Service
non-sequitur. This response is borderline off-topic to what I posted. This seems to be trollish like activity.
An entire armada of economists and a mountain of imperical recorded evidence would argue to the contrary. Are you denouncing the observed relevency of the business cycle?
You and Tom like to post arbitrary quotes that are either non-relevant or taken out of context on an entirely seperate topic. You also fail to actually provide a source to your quotes.
YOU personally did not document anything. Your simply restating someone elses’s faulty research and did a poor job of it. I beleive Esuric already refuted this silly argument
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
The fed isn’t exactly private. It’s a federally-mandated cartel of quasi-federal banks.
Wow…is this an Austrian theory or your own personal misconception? The Federal Reserve is 100% owned by private banks. The New York branch owners, hold over 51% of all stock. The New York Fed is by far the most powerful - it is there where interest rates are set and the FOMC and PPT operate. JPM, CitiBank, Goldman Sachs and HSBC are big owners of the New York Fed. This is a major conflict of interest and the reason for the bank bail-out.
No wonder we’re going bankrupt!
Larry
No it’s a methodological error on your part regarding the term “Private”. The Federal reserve is a state sponsored coercive monopoly. If it were not so it would not be the “Central Bank”, it only would only just be another regular bank.
Also it’s chairman and other aspects are appointed by congress.
Try again.