Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

So Ron Paul wants to "Ënd the fed"

lastsliceofpie
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2012 9:45:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
But as an austrian (so-called) economist, he himself still advocates banking and interest, elevated rates of interest even... The "fed" is like the regulator of the fraud, but, the fraud itself (the terminal crime against us all), is banking itself.

The obfuscation of the currency, the falsification of indebtedness to a pretend creditor who gives up no consideration commensurable to the debts they falsify to themselves, is the fraud... Borrowing our own contracts to pay from an entity that is the producer of nothing, is the fraud

To advocate ending the fed, but retain banking, (and elevated rates of interest???) is moronic
"What they [banks] do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers' transaction accounts. Loans (assets) and deposits (liabilities) both rise by [the amount of the "loan"]."

~Modern Money Mechanics, A Workbook on Bank Reserves and Deposit Expansion, by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, Page 6.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2012 10:16:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/12/2012 9:45:50 PM, lastsliceofpie wrote:
But as an austrian (so-called) economist, he himself still advocates banking and interest, elevated rates of interest even... The "fed" is like the regulator of the fraud, but, the fraud itself (the terminal crime against us all), is banking itself.

The obfuscation of the currency, the falsification of indebtedness to a pretend creditor who gives up no consideration commensurable to the debts they falsify to themselves, is the fraud... Borrowing our own contracts to pay from an entity that is the producer of nothing, is the fraud

To advocate ending the fed, but retain banking, (and elevated rates of interest???) is moronic

In a free market, why would one interact with a bank if it was instant-loss? Money would have to be backed by something of value that people would be able to trade the paper for, such as gold. The problem with current rates of interest is that they are only maintained by the printing of new money with no corresponding increase in things that they can be traded for. The Fed essentially engages in price fixing, which creates misallocations of capital and the like.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
lastsliceofpie
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2012 10:25:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
There cannot be any free market while the theiving banking systems are obfuscating our promissory obligations into debts to themselves, banks have subverted money itself... And gold, (or fiat, etc), are secondary representations of our promissory obligations, which are a representation of our own labor and production (that we owe to others), and gold (or any finite resource) as a currency has its flaws, especially when subjected to interest... Whatevers used as money has to equal (in value and volume) our original promissory obligations we have to each other
"What they [banks] do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers' transaction accounts. Loans (assets) and deposits (liabilities) both rise by [the amount of the "loan"]."

~Modern Money Mechanics, A Workbook on Bank Reserves and Deposit Expansion, by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, Page 6.
lastsliceofpie
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2012 10:33:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
http://australia4mpe.wordpress.com...

The banker was placed on the witness stand and sworn in. The plaintiff's (borrower's) attorney asked the banker the routine questions concerning the banker's education and background.

The attorney asked the banker, "What is court exhibit A?"

The banker responded by saying, "This is a promissory note."
"What they [banks] do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers' transaction accounts. Loans (assets) and deposits (liabilities) both rise by [the amount of the "loan"]."

~Modern Money Mechanics, A Workbook on Bank Reserves and Deposit Expansion, by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, Page 6.
lastsliceofpie
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2012 10:34:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"What they [banks] do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers' transaction accounts. Loans (assets) and deposits (liabilities) both rise by [the amount of the "loan"]."

~Modern Money Mechanics, A Workbook on Bank Reserves and Deposit Expansion, by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, Page 6.
"What they [banks] do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers' transaction accounts. Loans (assets) and deposits (liabilities) both rise by [the amount of the "loan"]."

~Modern Money Mechanics, A Workbook on Bank Reserves and Deposit Expansion, by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, Page 6.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2012 10:53:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/12/2012 9:45:50 PM, lastsliceofpie wrote:
But as an austrian (so-called) economist, he himself still advocates banking and interest

1) Money will arise on the market without banking
2) Banking naturally comes into being, because people are willing to pay for the privilege to borrow money now, which they will pay off in the future. This requires them to pay an interest rate as a counterbalance to risk.
3) Market-set interest rates adjust to the amount of savings in banks. When savings are high, the bank managers require less interest to be payed on loans, because there is sufficient collateral. When savings are low, the bank managers require more interest to be payed on loans, because there is less collateral. The interest rate that balances savings with risk effectively is called the market interest rate.
4) When central government sets the interest rate, it is improbable that they set the correct interest rate (federal funds rate in this case) for banks; and thus, there is a lack of an essential market signal to the economy. This miscommunication causes bubbles and inefficiency.

elevated rates of interest even...

If the market has high interest rates, more people will put their money in the bank, because it will return a good percentage of their money. This drives down the market interest rate, and equilibrium is restored. However, when the federal reserve sets the interest rate high or low for too long, deadweight loss and malinvestments occur.

Look at the Fed prime rate history: http://2.bp.blogspot.com...

The "fed" is like the regulator of the fraud, but, the fraud itself (the terminal crime against us all), is banking itself.

No, banking is used and wanted by people for business loans (e.g. to purchase a new machine in time for Christmas production), consumption loans (e.g. buying a Jet Ski in the summer), and emergency loans (e.g. buying construction materials after a tornado strikes). I agree that central banking is immoral, fraudulent, and dangerous and does in fact continue an incestual relationship between government and business, but that does not mean banks are bad. This is the association fallacy.

The obfuscation of the currency, the falsification of indebtedness to a pretend creditor who gives up no consideration commensurable to the debts they falsify to themselves, is the fraud... Borrowing our own contracts to pay from an entity that is the producer of nothing, is the fraud

1) People who hold their savings in a bank earn interest on their money, how is this indebtedness?
2) Would you prefer a world in which loans were never made, or if they were, that the payments were not collected?
3) The bank manager offers a service. He is not forcing anyone to take loans or save in his bank.

To advocate ending the fed, but retain banking, (and elevated rates of interest???) is moronic

This is an irrelevant conclusion, because you fail to see the difference between what banking would be without a central bank, FDIC, and onerous regulation, and what it is like with those institutions and procedures.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2012 11:50:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
What you propose? A ban on banks? A ban on interest?
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2012 12:02:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/12/2012 10:16:39 PM, mongoose wrote:
Money would have to be backed by something of value that people would be able to trade the paper for, such as gold.

Gold is just as useless as paper :)
President of DDO
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2012 12:05:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/13/2012 12:02:56 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 5/12/2012 10:16:39 PM, mongoose wrote:
Money would have to be backed by something of value that people would be able to trade the paper for, such as gold.

Gold is just as useless as paper :)

You can use paper for kindling!
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
LibertyCampbell
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2012 12:19:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/13/2012 12:02:56 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 5/12/2012 10:16:39 PM, mongoose wrote:
Money would have to be backed by something of value that people would be able to trade the paper for, such as gold.

Gold is just as useless as paper :)

I'll trade you a thousand pounds of paper.
"[Society] has no vested interest in continuing to exist." -RP
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2012 12:33:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/13/2012 12:02:56 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 5/12/2012 10:16:39 PM, mongoose wrote:
Money would have to be backed by something of value that people would be able to trade the paper for, such as gold.

Gold is just as useless as paper :)

Gold is fairly useful as a metal. It's very malleable and ductile. And value is subjective.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Ameriman
Posts: 622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2012 12:34:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
No need for a gold standard.

Just good, stable fed policies which follow the Taylor Rule and focus on prices.
We spend too much our time measuring compassion for those in needs by measuring inputs. How much money are we spending? How many programs are we creating? But we are not focusing on outcomes. Are these programs working? Are people getting out of poverty?
-Paul Ryan
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2012 2:05:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/13/2012 12:02:56 AM, Danielle wrote:

Gold is just as useless as paper :)

You can eat gold!!

http://www.reuters.com...
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2012 2:08:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/13/2012 12:34:40 AM, Ameriman wrote:
No need for a gold standard.

Just good, stable fed policies which follow the Taylor Rule and focus on prices.

You should have just said stability, because stability and the Federal Reserve are so close that they might as well be synonymous!

[Fed established 1913] http://www.economics-charts.com...
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Ameriman
Posts: 622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2012 2:10:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/13/2012 2:08:51 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 5/13/2012 12:34:40 AM, Ameriman wrote:
No need for a gold standard.

Just good, stable fed policies which follow the Taylor Rule and focus on prices.

You should have just said stability, because stability and the Federal Reserve are so close that they might as well be synonymous!

[Fed established 1913] http://www.economics-charts.com...

Of course, the fed isn't stable.

Why would you say that it isn't?
We spend too much our time measuring compassion for those in needs by measuring inputs. How much money are we spending? How many programs are we creating? But we are not focusing on outcomes. Are these programs working? Are people getting out of poverty?
-Paul Ryan
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2012 2:14:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/13/2012 2:10:18 AM, Ameriman wrote:

Of course, the fed isn't stable.

Why would you say that it isn't?

The Federal Reserve has done wonders for the poor with its stable monetary policy and interest rate fixing.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Ameriman
Posts: 622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2012 3:12:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/13/2012 2:14:20 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 5/13/2012 2:10:18 AM, Ameriman wrote:

Of course, the fed isn't stable.

Why would you say that it isn't?

The Federal Reserve has done wonders for the poor with its stable monetary policy and interest rate fixing.

You're right. It isn't.

But, a gold standard wouldn't change that.

There is no reason to think that politicians would all of the sudden be responsible with a gold standard.
We spend too much our time measuring compassion for those in needs by measuring inputs. How much money are we spending? How many programs are we creating? But we are not focusing on outcomes. Are these programs working? Are people getting out of poverty?
-Paul Ryan
lastsliceofpie
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2012 10:12:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Posted: 9 hours ago
What you propose? A ban on banks? A ban on interest?

^Yes, exactly... No banks, an eradication of interest, and an obligatory schedule of payment... MPE

Pretty much what I advocate/propose, is a system (an accounting system ?) which commits no crimes against us... I advocate/propose an immutable currency and the only true free markets... No banks, public or private... MPE, (MPE=Mathematically Perfected Economy), is an elimination of exploitation in the process of monetization

Under MPE, there is no "banks" (money laundering offices) who would publish/issue the evidence of our promissory obligations (what we call "money"), and obfuscate our obligations into falsified debts to themselves

There would be a Common Monetary Infrastructure (CMI) instead of "a bank"... The CMI would issue money into circulation to the true creditors, and retire money (payments of principal) from circulation as obligors fulfill their obligations.

The true creditor gives up property and is paid in full... The obligor then has the obligation (not a debt, the true creditor was paid in full) to contribute a like volume (an equal representation) of his own labor and production to the overall pool of wealth, to earn back what money you created/issued into circulation, then paying down and retiring/deleting that money from circulation, as whatever related property is consumed/depreciates

Paid principal is a fulfilled IOU, it no longer represents value, no longer represents entitlement... It represents consumption of the value of property, which value no longer exists... Any paid principal payed down out of circulation on a promissory obligation is the property of NO ONE. That obligation has been fullfilled. It is retired from circulation

I propose people learn Mathmatically Perfected Economy, a 44+ year old proof of solution to the lie of (so-called) economy
"What they [banks] do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers' transaction accounts. Loans (assets) and deposits (liabilities) both rise by [the amount of the "loan"]."

~Modern Money Mechanics, A Workbook on Bank Reserves and Deposit Expansion, by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, Page 6.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2012 10:28:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/13/2012 10:12:11 AM, lastsliceofpie wrote:
Posted: 9 hours ago
What you propose? A ban on banks? A ban on interest?

^Yes, exactly... No banks, an eradication of interest, and an obligatory schedule of payment... MPE

Pretty much what I advocate/propose, is a system (an accounting system ?) which commits no crimes against us... I advocate/propose an immutable currency and the only true free markets... No banks, public or private... MPE, (MPE=Mathematically Perfected Economy), is an elimination of exploitation in the process of monetization

Under MPE, there is no "banks" (money laundering offices) who would publish/issue the evidence of our promissory obligations (what we call "money"), and obfuscate our obligations into falsified debts to themselves

There would be a Common Monetary Infrastructure (CMI) instead of "a bank"... The CMI would issue money into circulation to the true creditors, and retire money (payments of principal) from circulation as obligors fulfill their obligations.


The true creditor gives up property and is paid in full...

By force or voluntarily?

The obligor then has the obligation (not a debt, the true creditor was paid in full) to contribute a like volume (an equal representation) of his own labor and production to the overall pool of wealth, to earn back what money you created/issued into circulation,

What "pool of wealth"? How do you know what is considered an "equal represnetation" since value is subjective.

I thought the creditor had to give up property to obtain money. While would someone then have to "earn the money back"? What does that even mean "earn the money back that was created"?

then paying down and retiring/deleting that money from circulation, as whatever related property is consumed/depreciates


Paid principal is a fulfilled IOU, it no longer represents value, no longer represents entitlement... It represents consumption of the value of property, which value no longer exists... Any paid principal payed down out of circulation on a promissory obligation is the property of NO ONE. That obligation has been fullfilled. It is retired from circulation

Totally lost me there.

I propose people learn Mathmatically Perfected Economy, a 44+ year old proof of solution to the lie of (so-called) economy

Okay, this isn't your idea, never mind then I can just look the stuff up.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2012 10:49:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/13/2012 3:12:54 AM, Ameriman wrote:
At 5/13/2012 2:14:20 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 5/13/2012 2:10:18 AM, Ameriman wrote:

Of course, the fed isn't stable.

Why would you say that it isn't?

The Federal Reserve has done wonders for the poor with its stable monetary policy and interest rate fixing.


You're right. It isn't.

But, a gold standard wouldn't change that.


There is no reason to think that politicians would all of the sudden be responsible with a gold standard.

Not to mention it destroyed the British economy (well made its growth decline) under Winston Churchill.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2012 10:50:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
All of the components of the Mathematically Perfecter Economy have been thoroughly refuted, so I'll place the refutations below.

At 5/13/2012 10:12:11 AM, lastsliceofpie wrote:
Posted: 9 hours ago
What you propose? A ban on banks? A ban on interest?

^Yes, exactly... No banks, an eradication of interest, and an obligatory schedule of payment... MPE

That basically destroys or delays most entrepreneurial activity right there. Also, you would need a coercive state to diminish the market for loans, which would then arise in a black market in the shadow of the state. Then you would imprison people for providing a service that other people want.

Pretty much what I advocate/propose, is a system (an accounting system ?) which commits no crimes against us... I advocate/propose an immutable currency and the only true free markets... No banks, public or private... MPE, (MPE=Mathematically Perfected Economy), is an elimination of exploitation in the process of monetization

Any economic theory that is written in large, pink font does not deserve to be taken seriously.

There are four major premises supporting this theory:

1) People trade things that are of equal value. If they trade things that are not equal in value, then one of them is being cheated

The idea that people come away from trades with something of greater value than what they brought to them and that their valuation of things depends on how many of those items they already own is the foundation of all modern schools of economics.

2) Borrowers are trading more money in the future for less money now. It follows from premise #1 that they are being cheated.

When one person loans money to another at interest, it does not imply that the latter is being cheated; only that two people have different time preferences. They made a trade based on that difference in the same way that the candy store owner and I were able to make a trade because we had different valuations of a candy bar. The only thing new about this theory is that they are trading present goods for future goods, whereas the 89¢ and the candy bar that I traded it for both existed in the present.

3) Any monetary system subject to interest ultimately terminates itself under insoluble debt. It follows from premise #2 that, because the charging of interest is not currently prohibited, the world economy is destined to collapse.

That's an irrelevant conclusion. Even if there were people systematically cheating the rest of us, that would not make an economic collapse "inevitable."

4) There is class conflict between laborers and usurers as they battle over the unearned gain (surplus value) that is the proletariats' due. By an argument similar to dialectical materialism, as the world economy collapses (see premise #3), the implementation of Mathematically Perfected Economy™ is inevitable.

This is basically dialectical materialism, which should be familiar to any critic of Marx. The easy answer is that, just as society is no longer partitioned into workers and capitalists but has many prosperous self-employed tradesmen and many salarymen who own stocks, neither is it partitioned into debtors and creditors. We no longer have company towns where the residents have made serfs of themselves by borrowing more from the company store than they can ever repay. Today, most people are simultaneously both creditors and debtors.

Under MPE, there is no "banks" (money laundering offices) who would publish/issue the evidence of our promissory obligations (what we call "money"), and obfuscate our obligations into falsified debts to themselves

Money would arise on the market without banks, and no, money is not debt.

There would be a Common Monetary Infrastructure (CMI) instead of "a bank"... The CMI would issue money into circulation to the true creditors, and retire money (payments of principal) from circulation as obligors fulfill their obligations.

Central planning doesn't work, and this is similar to the Federal Reserve, which doesn't work.

The true creditor gives up property and is paid in full... The obligor then has the obligation (not a debt, the true creditor was paid in full) to contribute a like volume (an equal representation) of his own labor and production to the overall pool of wealth, to earn back what money you created/issued into circulation, then paying down and retiring/deleting that money from circulation, as whatever related property is consumed/depreciates

Or, you could allow banking to work well without the Federal Reserve, which it had done prior to 1913.

Paid principal is a fulfilled IOU, it no longer represents value, no longer represents entitlement... It represents consumption of the value of property, which value no longer exists... Any paid principal payed down out of circulation on a promissory obligation is the property of NO ONE. That obligation has been fullfilled. It is retired from circulation

This is a temporarily monetary expansionist policy that works by cheating the people around you. Let's say the economy has $100,000, and you take an IOU for $1,000 dollars, it is much easier now to pay back the $1,000, because the economy's fiat currency has devalued. This doesn't seem helpful to society.

I propose people learn Mathmatically Perfected Economy, a 44+ year old proof of solution to the lie of (so-called) economy

I will simply point out that his plan has already been tried, albeit without the hubris of calling itself mathematically perfected. During the Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress spent paper money directly into the economy and we all know what happened to them. They won the war but the expression "not worth a Continental" still resonates with us today. Ten years later, their government went the way of the Weimar Republic. Fortunately, unlike the Weimar Republic, which was replaced by the Nazis, the Continental Congress was replaced by the United States of America, which turned out to be a pretty good government. So, hyperinflation does not always lead to tyranny, though that is something to beware of whenever one contemplates debasing the currency.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
lastsliceofpie
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2012 10:55:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Voluntarily, no force... You contract with whoever you choose to contract with...

"How do you know what is considered an "equal represnetation" since value is subjective."
We decide ourselves... By choosing to make the exchange of property with someone else

"I thought the creditor had to give up property to obtain money. While would someone then have to "earn the money back"? What does that even mean "earn the money back that was created"?"
The creditor does give up the property, and recieves payment (in full) on the issuance of someones promissory obligation... So the person who issued that promissory obligation (person who created and issued that money for the creditor?) must then pay down and retire money from circulation, equal to the depreciation of consumption of whatever related property he purchased... We create the money, and our payments are made retiring money from circulation, not paying what money we create (plus interest) into the possession of the banks (the money laundering offices)

"Okay, this isn't your idea, never mind then I can just look the stuff up."
Yeah, this isnt my idea or anything, dont want to mislead anyone about that... Mathematically Perfected Economy is Mike Montagnes work, and its over 44 years old, and still unrefuted... unless anyone here can actually demonstrate/qualify/prove what consideration any bank gives up in their purported creation of money ???
"What they [banks] do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers' transaction accounts. Loans (assets) and deposits (liabilities) both rise by [the amount of the "loan"]."

~Modern Money Mechanics, A Workbook on Bank Reserves and Deposit Expansion, by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, Page 6.
lastsliceofpie
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2012 10:59:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Just how exactly is MPE "central planning"... when theres no banking, and no government regulations... How is issuing an unexplited promissory obligation, somehow equated to being centrally planned? If its because we would be subjected to a credit check, we already have those today... Hows it a centrally planned economy?
"What they [banks] do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers' transaction accounts. Loans (assets) and deposits (liabilities) both rise by [the amount of the "loan"]."

~Modern Money Mechanics, A Workbook on Bank Reserves and Deposit Expansion, by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, Page 6.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2012 11:02:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/13/2012 3:12:54 AM, Ameriman wrote:

You're right. It isn't.

But, a gold standard wouldn't change that.

There is no reason to think that politicians would all of the sudden be responsible with a gold standard.

1) Using the gold standard and decentralizing banking away from the hands of politicians kind of cuts down on their influence over it: the gold standard makes the determination of money's purchasing power independent of the changing ambitions and doctrines of political parties and pressure groups. That's the main excellence.

2) The gold standard forces politicians to live within their means. It forces banks to lend only to those with the credit to afford it, because the federal government is prevented from printing unlimited new money to bail them out. It prevents deficit spending. It prevents the unlimited hiring of government bureaucrats and the unfunded pension liabilities that come with them. The gold standard hinders government's ability to dole out massive welfare and entitlement programs. The gold standard stands in the way of government's ability to redistribute wealth and pursue economic re-engineering. With the gold standard in place, government automatically becomes more open, honest and transparent- it either lives within its means or raises taxes, as opposed to simply printing more money (creating a stealth tax called inflation).
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
lastsliceofpie
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2012 11:03:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Also, you seem to still not see the purposed obfuscation of our currency... There would be no need for "loans" as you say, because again, we would be issuing our own promissory obligations ourselves (at no interest), there would be no need for "loans" if we had actual representation and could issue an unexploited promissory obligation (which again, is to pay and retire principal from circulation, NOT into the possession of a pretend creditor banking system)
"What they [banks] do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers' transaction accounts. Loans (assets) and deposits (liabilities) both rise by [the amount of the "loan"]."

~Modern Money Mechanics, A Workbook on Bank Reserves and Deposit Expansion, by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, Page 6.
lastsliceofpie
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2012 11:06:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
"Money is not a debt"

Money is the debt instrument, its created (if its needed at all) to pay a debt... Moneys the evidence or record of the exchange of property, but its the exchange that is the debt, not the money itself
"What they [banks] do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers' transaction accounts. Loans (assets) and deposits (liabilities) both rise by [the amount of the "loan"]."

~Modern Money Mechanics, A Workbook on Bank Reserves and Deposit Expansion, by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, Page 6.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2012 11:40:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/13/2012 10:55:30 AM, lastsliceofpie wrote:
Voluntarily, no force... You contract with whoever you choose to contract with...

If an economy was left totally voluntary, the system that would arise out of spontaneous order would not be the Socialist MPE, it would be banking without government blemishes.

"How do you know what is considered an "equal represnetation" since value is subjective."

http://wiki.mises.org...
http://mises.org...
http://mises.org...

We decide ourselves... By choosing to make the exchange of property with someone else

Voluntary exchanges are good, but your system requires the illegalization of banks, which requires force, and many people will not have another choice for themselves besides your monopoly on lending. Furthermore, your system doesn't give people the choice to earn interest on their savings; that alone leads to economic ills.

"I thought the creditor had to give up property to obtain money. While would someone then have to "earn the money back"? What does that even mean "earn the money back that was created"?"

You are the person that wrote that lol

The creditor does give up the property, and recieves payment (in full) on the issuance of someones promissory obligation... So the person who issued that promissory obligation (person who created and issued that money for the creditor?) must then pay down and retire money from circulation, equal to the depreciation of consumption of whatever related property he purchased... We create the money, and our payments are made retiring money from circulation, not paying what money we create (plus interest) into the possession of the banks (the money laundering offices)

This doesn't make the system better than free-market banking, but instead complicates it into a perverted system of monopolistic control.

"Okay, this isn't your idea, never mind then I can just look the stuff up."
Yeah, this isnt my idea or anything, dont want to mislead anyone about that... Mathematically Perfected Economy is Mike Montagnes work, and its over 44 years old, and still unrefuted... unless anyone here can actually demonstrate/qualify/prove what consideration any bank gives up in their purported creation of money ???

1) The Federal Reserve System creates money (fiat currency, although it isn't really money) because it's basically Washington's back-door b*tch.
2) It's been thoroughly refuted. Read this: http://axiomaticeconomics.com...
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2012 11:42:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/13/2012 11:06:35 AM, lastsliceofpie wrote:
It's the exchange that is the debt, not the money itself

Try to back that statement up with a syllogism or empirical evidence.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
lastsliceofpie
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2012 12:38:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"Try to back that statement up with a syllogism or empirical evidence."

Money is simply a representation of our promissory obligations (which represents our labor and production that we *owe to each other*) So if we did not *owe* our labor and production to another person, if someone else wasnt entitled to our production, then there would be no need for money... Its the exchange that is the debt, money is created to pay a debt, but it is not the debt itself
"What they [banks] do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers' transaction accounts. Loans (assets) and deposits (liabilities) both rise by [the amount of the "loan"]."

~Modern Money Mechanics, A Workbook on Bank Reserves and Deposit Expansion, by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, Page 6.