Subscribe today! Get full access to all the latest news, videos and forums at Gatorcountry.com. Its quick, easy and starts instantly. Join now!
Welcome home to Gator Country's legendary Swamp Gas forums where you can join thousands of Gator fans from around the world discussing all things Orange and Blue! Why don't you register today and jump right on in the forums? If you'd like to participate in our premium forums, join today for the real inside scoop!
It makes absolutely no sense to allow a tiny subset of private for-profit corporations to control our currency.
Worse yet, our government signed off on a debt-backed currency (Federal Reserve notes) which means that our money can only be borrowed into existence. One hundred percent of our currency is created by private banks as debt. Money is supposed to be the medium of exchange for all of society to use in trading goods and services--the basic foundations of real wealth.
Why should our medium of exchange require the issuance of debt to come into existence? There is nothing inherent in a medium of exchange which would cause one to think that a debt is necessary for the medium to function effectively in a trading system.
In short, debt is not needed to have a functioning medium of exchange. Debt-backed money is merely a scheme of the banksters to hold all of society (including the people's government) hostage in a state of perpetual debt peonage.
Many will say that the answer is the gold standard, or even bimetallism, but these systems are too easily manipulated by the private banks. Money should, at worst, be a public utility controlled by society in general at the governmental level. At best, the monetary system should be entirely free: no legal tender laws, no "national currency", but rather anything two willing participants in an exchange deem to qualify as the medium of their exchange.
If we chose to treat money as a public utility, then it should be created and spent into existence by our government to pay for public services. I'm not a big fan of expanding government power, but I also believe that this power has always belonged to the government and it has just been given away to the private banks for too long.
I have not figured out all these issues completely but have been thinking very critically lately about the monetary system we use. Does anyone have thoughts on monetary reform? I think ending the FED is a good start, but the mechanics of the monetary system beyond that need to be fleshed out a bit more.
I'm hoping to watch the Secret of Oz soon, a new documentary by Bill Still (who produced Money Masters). Here's a trailer:
there is no solution at the present time...the system is farked for sure but you are leaving out the human element...
the transitional pain those of our mindset are willing, almost hoping to undertake, is not shared by the general population....
and successively it never will be...
it will take a reset with the societal hindsight of our past mistakes to move in a more rewarding direction..
__________________
"For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. " CS
"Many will say that the answer is the gold standard, or even bimetallism, but these systems are too easily manipulated by the private banks. Money should, at worst, be a public utility controlled by society in general at the governmental level. At best, the monetary system should be entirely free: no legal tender laws, no 'national currency', but rather anything two willing participants in an exchange deem to qualify as the medium of their exchange."
You are contradicting yourself here. You can't have a completely free monetary system and one that is a "public utility controlled by society" also.
There is a simple solution, though. Govt should have nothing to do with the monetary and banking system. People can use whatever they agree upon as money in individual transactions, and that would undoubtedly turn out to be gold.
Just put the payment medium in the contract.
I've spent a lot of time trying to understand this subject and will come back here and explain it some tomorrow.
It's shocking how little Americans understand what is going on and how badly they are getting screwed.
A dollar today is worth less than 5 cents compared to what it was worth a hundred years ago, and considering that the amount of real wealth that exists today is much greater than it was then, it would have been worth much more but for govt and its friends robbing everyone by (metaphorically speaking) printing it whenever they want some even had the money supply remained stable.
The bottom line is that we have the system we have now so govt and the political supporters of those in power can make it for themselves when they want it--in principle, not much different than what counterfeiters are doing.
Something to keep in mind while you are thinking about all this:
The consumer price index in 1774 was 5 bucks and change. In 1913, just before the Fed went into business, it was 7 bucks and change.
In July of this year, it was 215 bucks and change.
(The consumer price index is the price of a bundle of goods selected because they are thought to be indicators of the value of money.)
And remember, all this time the amount of real wealth was increasing, which means that the consumer price index would have been going down without dramatic increases in the money supply.
A fact that gives an indication of the magnitude of what has been stolen.
"Many will say that the answer is the gold standard, or even bimetallism, but these systems are too easily manipulated by the private banks. Money should, at worst, be a public utility controlled by society in general at the governmental level. At best, the monetary system should be entirely free: no legal tender laws, no 'national currency', but rather anything two willing participants in an exchange deem to qualify as the medium of their exchange."
You are contradicting yourself here. You can't have a completely free monetary system and one that is a "public utility controlled by society" also.
There is a simple solution, though. Govt should have nothing to do with the monetary and banking system. People can use whatever they agree upon as money in individual transactions, and that would undoubtedly turn out to be gold.
Just put the payment medium in the contract.
I've spent a lot of time trying to understand this subject and will come back here and explain it some tomorrow.
It's shocking how little Americans understand what is going on and how badly they are getting screwed.
A dollar today is worth less than 5 cents compared to what it was worth a hundred years ago, and considering that the amount of real wealth that exists today is much greater than it was then, it would have been worth much more but for govt and its friends robbing everyone by (metaphorically speaking) printing it whenever they want some even had the money supply remained stable.
The bottom line is that we have the system we have now so govt and the political supporters of those in power can make it for themselves when they want it--in principle, not much different than what counterfeiters are doing.
actually we DO know how bad we are being screwed by the financial industry. we just aren't sure what exactly we can do about it.
The moral is the same as for all the other bubbles that Goldman helped create, from 1929 to 2009. In almost every case, the very same bank that behaved recklessly for years, weighing down the system with toxic loans and predatory debt, and accomplishing nothing but massive bonuses for a few bosses, has been rewarded with mountains of virtually free money and government guarantees — while the actual victims in this mess, ordinary taxpayers, are the ones paying for it.
It's not always easy to accept the reality of what we now routinely allow these people to get away with; there's a kind of collective denial that kicks in when a country goes through what America has gone through lately, when a people lose as much prestige and status as we have in the past few years. You can't really register the fact that you're no longer a citizen of a thriving first-world democracy, that you're no longer above getting robbed in broad daylight, because like an amputee, you can still sort of feel things that are no longer there.
But this is it. This is the world we live in now. And in this world, some of us have to play by the rules, while others get a note from the principal excusing them from homework till the end of time, plus 10 billion free dollars in a paper bag to buy lunch. It's a gangster state, running on gangster economics, and even prices can't be trusted anymore; there are hidden taxes in every buck you pay. And maybe we can't stop it, but we should at least know where it's all going.
"Many will say that the answer is the gold standard, or even bimetallism, but these systems are too easily manipulated by the private banks. Money should, at worst, be a public utility controlled by society in general at the governmental level. At best, the monetary system should be entirely free: no legal tender laws, no 'national currency', but rather anything two willing participants in an exchange deem to qualify as the medium of their exchange."
You are contradicting yourself here. You can't have a completely free monetary system and one that is a "public utility controlled by society" also.
I agree that those two systems are contradictory and was not attempting to posit that they could somehow co-exist. I apologize for the lack of clarity there. My point by discussing those two contradictory paths was to say that I think either of those paths would be better than our current system.
Quote:
There is a simple solution, though. Govt should have nothing to do with the monetary and banking system.
Absolutely agree here. 100%.
Quote:
People can use whatever they agree upon as money in individual transactions, and that would undoubtedly turn out to be gold.
I think it would often turn out to be gold, but for many people silver would make more sense for small daily transactions. For larger transactions and storing wealth, I think you're right that gold would often be chosen. But we agree that it should be up to the individual.
Quote:
Just put the payment medium in the contract.
I've spent a lot of time trying to understand this subject and will come back here and explain it some tomorrow.
Agree that the payment medium should be freely contracted by the parties to any exchange.
Quote:
It's shocking how little Americans understand what is going on and how badly they are getting screwed.
A dollar today is worth less than 5 cents compared to what it was worth a hundred years ago, and considering that the amount of real wealth that exists today is much greater than it was then, it would have been worth much more but for govt and its friends robbing everyone by (metaphorically speaking) printing it whenever they want some even had the money supply remained stable.
The bottom line is that we have the system we have now so govt and the political supporters of those in power can make it for themselves when they want it--in principle, not much different than what counterfeiters are doing.
I think people slept on this issue for decades because the economy did well enough to placate the masses through the narcotic properties of debt-driven consumerism. But I also think that a great number of people are currently waking up to monetary issues. I actually think that it could provide the impetus for the rise of a viable 3rd party in the near future.
Good discussion. Looking forward to your thoughts tomorrow.
Repeal the legal tender laws and free the banking industry.
How extensive does the govt involvement have to be for people to understand that all these abuses are made possible only by govt involvement?
Right now we have a banking and monetary system that is practically run by the govt.
Run with extensive REGULATION.
Essentially, we are forced to use as money something that can be created at will by others.
By others who are stealing us blind.
They took us off the gold standard because they couldn't print gold.
Simple as that.
The govt created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to "help" people with poor credit to buy homes. And the GOVERNMENT created Federal Reserve kept interest rates low so people could afford to make the payments.
So, lots of people bought homes they could not really afford.
The demand created by all these newly created home buyers forced home prices up, creating a "bubble."
This bubble popped when the economy dropped a little. Financial institutions, insurance companies, and other investors had purchased the mortgages written on many of these home purchases.
When the people couldn't pay their mortgages, these companies went broke, causing a crisis in the financial sector that caused credit to dry up. People couldn't get loans to buy cars.
Then the govt rushed in to "save" the companies by effectively taking them over and giving them or control of them to political supporters.
And all the while, blaming "Wall Street" and "capitalism" and "crooked, incompetent business men," etc.
And all the time it was the fault of the looters in Washington.
This is the way a great country is being consumed by parasites.
Unfortunately trust of government is high right now. But in the coming years that confidence in government will erode and people will find a way to take back more of the sovereignty that is rightfully theirs.
Repeal the legal tender laws and free the banking industry.
How extensive does the govt involvement have to be for people to understand that all these abuses are made possible only by govt involvement?
Right now we have a banking and monetary system that is practically run by the govt.
Run with extensive REGULATION.
Essentially, we are forced to use as money something that can be created at will by others.
By others who are stealing us blind.
They took us off the gold standard because they couldn't print gold.
Simple as that.
The govt created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to "help" people with poor credit to buy homes. And the GOVERNMENT created Federal Reserve kept interest rates low so people could afford to make the payments.
So, lots of people bought homes they could not really afford.
The demand created by all these newly created home buyers forced home prices up, creating a "bubble."
This bubble popped when the economy dropped a little. Financial institutions, insurance companies, and other investors had purchased the mortgages written on many of these home purchases.
When the people couldn't pay their mortgages, these companies went broke, causing a crisis in the financial sector that caused credit to dry up. People couldn't get loans to buy cars.
Then the govt rushed in to "save" the companies by effectively taking them over and giving them or control of them to political supporters.
And all the while, blaming "Wall Street" and "capitalism" and "crooked, incompetent business men," etc.
And all the time it was the fault of the looters in Washington.
This is the way a great country is being consumed by parasites.
BS!!!! the banking industry was UNREGULATED and raped the american public. yes, you can firmly blame wall street. read the damn article.
__________________
just gimme what i want and no one gets hurt...
I wish I had time to write about this. I am not a banker, but these ideas are fundamentally flawed. There are two main issues you are missing (and take time to fully explain):
1. borrowing-lending and the market for that creates enormous wealth (we are all richer due to its existence)
2. money as we know it is absolutely necessary as it reduces transaction costs in multiple ways (which makes us all much, much, much richer)
You then have to get into a discussion about what money is, which is nothing more than a collective promise about how to measure and exchange (crucial) the value created by human activity. Of course, it would be nice if it were as simple to operate as it is to say, but that's an entire sub-field of economics.
BTW, the banks do not "control" the money.
Other than all this, you are onto something.
Now, I am not saying the system is perfect, nor I do think it's easy for regulations to keep up with the innovative minds who try to game the system. The bigger the financial system (that's a good thing -- that means we are relatively wealthy), the more incentive there is to find loopholes (or to flat our violate the law). I am not excusing what some people did. However, any remedy that suggests something like "get rid of financial intermediaries" or even "get rid of money" is a formula for a much bigger crisis than we have ever seen to date -- ever.
I wish I had time to write about this. I am not a banker, but these ideas are fundamentally flawed. There are two main issues you are missing (and take time to fully explain):
1. borrowing-lending and the market for that creates enormous wealth (we are all richer due to its existence)
2. money as we know it is absolutely necessary as it reduces transaction costs in multiple ways (which makes us all much, much, much richer)
1. I have no problem with borrowing/lending between willing parties. I do not wish to rid the world of debt systems in their entirety. My thought at this time is merely that there is no need for debt to be necessitated in the creation of our monetary system. What about a medium of exchange requires debt? I don't see anything within exchange itself that requires debt to create the medium of exchange.
2. We should certainly have money. The questions I pose go to a critical analysis of the origin of that money. Yes, I agree that if we were limited to a pure barter economy that there would be structural limitations which would be nearly impossible to overcome and somehow create and sustain an economy as complex as ours in its current state. We need money. The question is who controls it: the private banks or the people?
Quote:
You then have to get into a discussion about what money is, which is nothing more than a collective promise about how to measure and exchange (crucial) the value created by human activity. Of course, it would be nice if it were as simple to operate as it is to say, but that's an entire sub-field of economics.
I agree. Why does such an implicit promise require the issuance of debt?
Quote:
BTW, the banks do not "control" the money.
May I ask, who creates money then? If banks do not control money then how has the fractional reserve system functioned for decades? Does the fractional reserve system producing FRNs not create a system whereby banks control money?
Quote:
Other than all this, you are onto something.
Now I'm confused. Honestly. What am I onto? Not trying to be a jerk or flame. Where do you think I'm on the right track?
Quote:
Now, I am not saying the system is perfect, nor I do think it's easy for regulations to keep up with the innovative minds who try to game the system. The bigger the financial system (that's a good thing -- that means we are relatively wealthy), the more incentive there is to find loopholes (or to flat our violate the law). I am not excusing what some people did. However, any remedy that suggests something like "get rid of financial intermediaries" or even "get rid of money" is a formula for a much bigger crisis than we have ever seen to date -- ever.
How does a bigger financial system mean we are relatively wealthy? The financial system doesn't actually produce anything. It can, when efficient and productive, reduce transaction costs across the economy. The same could be said for lawyers, but I doubt you would say, "Look we have a ton of lawyers, that means we are relatively wealthy". I could be entirely misinterpreting you here and I apologize if that's what's going on.
Can you point out above where I suggested that we get rid of financial intermediaries or money? We simply need to rewire the tubes inside the banks and rework the structure of our money. Banks would still have a place, as would debt. Debt simply wouldn't be required to issue currency. We'd still have money, it just wouldn't be backed by debt.
For those of us who are sensible enough not to keep our wealth in the form of dollar bills stuffed into a mattress, it's not a problem.
But you are still forced into transactions in debt-backed currency. Money is primarily a medium of exchange rather than a store of wealth. You currently have no choice but to accept (and use) the fraudulent debt-backed currency in basically every transaction. There's no reason any exchange of value should require as a prerequisite debt created by a private bank.
But you are still forced into transactions in debt-backed currency. Money is primarily a medium of exchange rather than a store of wealth. You currently have no choice but to accept (and use) the fraudulent debt-backed currency in basically every transaction. There's no reason any exchange of value should require as a prerequisite debt created by a private bank.
You mean in other words, end the fractional-reserve system, and have a 1:1 ratio of currency backed by something that has inherent value, such as gold, pigs, or wheat?
You mean in other words, end the fractional-reserve system, and have a 1:1 ratio of currency backed by something that has inherent value, such as gold, pigs, or wheat?
I'm actually not sure the currency needs to be backed by anything. The problem is that anything that backs a currency can be manipulated by the banks, meaning they would still control all of society. (That's the problem with the gold standard and why I'm not an advocate of it.)
If people agree on the currency's use, then it is already backed without the need for direct backing by commodity. The trust involved in such a system would back the currency. In a free money system, I think there would end up being currencies that were backed by commodity and currencies that were backed merely by the trust that they would be accepted in certain situations (for example, if the government issued a currency without a commodity backing it that could be used to pay taxes).
I'm actually not sure the currency needs to be backed by anything. The problem is that anything that backs a currency can be manipulated by the banks, meaning they would still control all of society. (That's the problem with the gold standard and why I'm not an advocate of it.)
If people agree on the currency's use, then it is already backed without the need for direct backing by commodity. The trust involved in such a system would back the currency. In a free money system, I think there would end up being currencies that were backed by commodity and currencies that were backed merely by the trust that they would be accepted in certain situations (for example, if the government issued a currency without a commodity backing it that could be used to pay taxes).
Wait, you're saying that the dollar isn't backed on faith right now?
Wait, you're saying that the dollar isn't backed on faith right now?
No, not saying that. Faith/trust is a big part of the dollar. But it's backed directly with debt, with each dollar issued being based on debt. I don't see why the debt is necessary--our currency hasn't always been backed by debt.
Why do we let private banks control OUR currency?
Linear Mode
