Central Banking is Socialism

[sparky]

To repeat, it reduces the net interest cost of Treasury borrowing. It actually saves money.


What causes "natural" booms and busts?

As soon as you admit that the reduced interest cost, thanks to the Fed, means
the IRS needs to steal less of our labor. Please.

Toddster, until you learn what money is you're not really ready to discuss cost.

Your entire set of terms of controversy are dependent upon a misunderstanding of what money is.

Until you learn what money is there's just no intellectual value in debating anything relevant to cost with you. I'm sorry, there just isn't.

You need to demonstrate that you have some rudimentary grasp on what a store of value means. Which, btw, is not a receipt for a claim check on an IOU bond like you seem to think. That's not money. Thats not a store of value. Huh uh.

how fractional banking works is lost on many, how the banksters were put in line via Glass Steagal in the 30's, and then let off their leash in the 90's rescinding of it (while the nation was focused on a blue dress) , then later bullsh*ted by the 'banking commission in '09, who's chair happened to be one of the proponents of it, as well as the banksters b*tch is a debauchery in of itself

~S~

 

[Andylusion]

The Fed, like other Central Banks, can create money out of thin air.

Now you're getting warmer Todd

~S~

The Fed is not a private corporation. We've been over this. They are run by the Federal Government. The Federal Reserve must get congress to allow it to do any operation that is outside of their Federal Mandated limits. The leadership of the Federal Reserve is appointed by government. The Federal Reserve also reports to government. Profits are given to the Federal Government.

There is nothing private about it.

It is also not really a pyramid scheme. That doesn't even make sense. Who are the new investors, whose money is used to pay older investors?

Lastly, there is no ever increasing debt, unless you continue to borrow.

If the Federal Government, ran a surplus year over year, they could pay down the debt, no matter what the interest rate is, and no matter what the Federal Reserve does.

If the Federal Government runs a deficit year over year, then they will eventually go bankrupt, no matter if the Federal Reserve existed or didn't exist.

 

[Andylusion]

To repeat, it reduces the net interest cost of Treasury borrowing. It actually saves money.


What causes "natural" booms and busts?

As soon as you admit that the reduced interest cost, thanks to the Fed, means
the IRS needs to steal less of our labor. Please.

Toddster, until you learn what money is you're not really ready to discuss cost.

Your entire set of terms of controversy are dependent upon a misunderstanding of what money is.

Until you learn what money is there's just no intellectual value in debating anything relevant to cost with you. I'm sorry, there just isn't.

You need to demonstrate that you have some rudimentary grasp on what a store of value means. Which, btw, is not a receipt for a claim check on an IOU bond like you seem to think. That's not money. Thats not a store of value. Huh uh.

how fractional banking works is lost on many, how the banksters were put in line via Glass Steagal in the 30's, and then let off their leash in the 90's rescinding of it (while the nation was focused on a blue dress) , then later bullsh*ted by the 'banking commission in '09, who's chair happened to be one of the proponents of it, as well as the banksters b*tch is a debauchery in of itself

~S~

None of what you said is true. Glass Steagal did not keep banks in line, nor did the repeal let them out of line.

First, you do realize that no other country in the world, had restrictions like Glass Steagal, and yet the bank crash happened here in the US.

If the lack of the lack of Glass Steagal restrictions are what caused the Sub-prime crash... then why didn't the crash happen elsewhere in the world, during the past 100 years? In fact, most of the world still even now, has no Glass Steagal restrictions, and looks to me like they are not having any crashes since the sub-prime melt down either.

Further, even if we had never repealed any of the Glass Steagal restrictions, I wager you would be hard pressed to even cite one single bank that crashed during the sub-prime melt down, that would have been affected by this.

Countrywide? No effect.
Indymac? No effect.
WaMu? No effect.
Bear Stearns? No effect.
Lehman Bros? No effect.

Out of the hundreds of banks that failed throughout the Sub-prime melt down, only one... one single bank that I know of, would have been affected by Glass Steagal not being repealed.

And then on the opposite side... Canada had no bank failures, has never had a Glass Steagal regulation.

So, the bottom line is, you argument falls very flat.

 

[Andylusion]

The Fed turns a profit, why do they need an income tax?

As was said, several times over by now, the IRS steals and turns over the fruits of our labor to the Treasury so that the Treasury can pay the principal plus interest on that bond that the Federal Reserve bought from a bank with a check which was drawn on an account that had nothing in it.

Without the income tax, the whole charade is impossible. It's no irony that we got the 16th Amendment, the Federal Reserve and its collection wing, the IRS, all in the same year.

We need to repeal the whole 1913 year. lol.

Partially true.

It is true that the Federal Reserve had to be created in order to have a uniform common currency.
It is also true, that the common currency allowed for an income tax, where it would not have been possible without a common currency.

That said, I don't think the Federal Reserve could not operating without an income tax. Of course it could. There were many central banks that governments had, which existed before a universal income tax.

The Federal Reserve could operate from any tax base at all. Sales tax. Estate tax. Tariffs. You name it.

Nevertheless, none of that really matters. Here's the bottom line....

We're not going back to a commodity backed currency. Just write that down, and memorize it, and move on. It will never happen.

Fed this, and 1913 that... it's nice to have little history lessons, but we're not going back to a pre-1913 era. It will never happen.

Better to spend your time arguing for positions that have the possibility of happening, then living in a dream land where we could get rid of the Fed. It's not happening.

If we did that... if we had some sort of revolution in the US, and revolutionaries somehow got into government, and wiped out the Federal Reserve, and went back to a gold standard or something, the net result would be to utterly wipe out the US as a world super power. It would push us back not only to the policies of 1913, but we'd end up being 1913. We would regress as a nation a 100 years.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

To repeat, it reduces the net interest cost of Treasury borrowing. It actually saves money.


What causes "natural" booms and busts?

As soon as you admit that the reduced interest cost, thanks to the Fed, means
the IRS needs to steal less of our labor. Please.

Toddster, until you learn what money is you're not really ready to discuss cost.

Your entire set of terms of controversy are dependent upon a misunderstanding of what money is.

Until you learn what money is there's just no intellectual value in debating anything relevant to cost with you. I'm sorry, there just isn't.

You need to demonstrate that you have some rudimentary grasp on what a store of value means. Which, btw, is not a receipt for a claim check on an IOU bond like you seem to think. That's not money. Thats not a store of value. Huh uh.

Toddster, until you learn what money is you're not really ready to discuss cost.

Feel free to post your irrelevant definition.

You need to demonstrate that you have some rudimentary grasp on what a store of value means.

Feel free to post your irrelevant definition.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

To repeat, it reduces the net interest cost of Treasury borrowing. It actually saves money.


What causes "natural" booms and busts?

As soon as you admit that the reduced interest cost, thanks to the Fed, means
the IRS needs to steal less of our labor. Please.

Toddster, until you learn what money is you're not really ready to discuss cost.

Your entire set of terms of controversy are dependent upon a misunderstanding of what money is.

Until you learn what money is there's just no intellectual value in debating anything relevant to cost with you. I'm sorry, there just isn't.

You need to demonstrate that you have some rudimentary grasp on what a store of value means. Which, btw, is not a receipt for a claim check on an IOU bond like you seem to think. That's not money. Thats not a store of value. Huh uh.

how fractional banking works is lost on many, how the banksters were put in line via Glass Steagal in the 30's, and then let off their leash in the 90's rescinding of it (while the nation was focused on a blue dress) , then later bullsh*ted by the 'banking commission in '09, who's chair happened to be one of the proponents of it, as well as the banksters b*tch is a debauchery in of itself

~S~

how fractional banking works is lost on many

Well, a bank takes in $100 in deposits and loans out a fraction, for instance $90, while
holding $10 in reserve.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Toddster, until you learn what money is you're not really ready to discuss cost.

Feel free to post your irrelevant definition.

You need to demonstrate that you have some rudimentary grasp on what a store of value means.

Feel free to post your irrelevant definition.

I have. Several times over. And did so again in this thread. It's like talking to the wall with you, man.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Well, a bank takes in $100 in deposits and loans out a fraction, for instance $90, while
holding $10 in reserve.

Except that now there's $190 in existence from the $100 dollars that that sparky deposited.

Sparky's bank account still says that he has 100 dollars even though the bank stole $90 of it. It's because the bank left IOUs that it created called 'bank credit' in its place.

To reference the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, they say that "Commercial banks create checkbook money whenever they grant a loan, simply by adding new deposit dollars in accounts on their books in exchange for a borrower's IOU."

These are nothing but numbers that the banks type into their computers. And even though these 'bank credit' IOU numbers are very different from 'base currency' numbers, because they only exist in computers, they are still considered 'currency.'

So here they've again inflated the money supply.

So the borrower takes the $90 that the bank loaned to him from sparky's account and he pays the seller of an item. Then the seller deposits that money into his account and his bank loans out 90% of that currency and again leaves bank credits in its place. So now there are $271 in existence from the original 90 taken from Sparky's bank account. This process repeats and repeats and repeats until it's under a 10% reserve ratio and all backed by $100 of ''vault cash."

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Toddster, until you learn what money is you're not really ready to discuss cost.

Feel free to post your irrelevant definition.

You need to demonstrate that you have some rudimentary grasp on what a store of value means.

Feel free to post your irrelevant definition.

I have. Several times over. And did so again in this thread. It's like talking to the wall with you, man.

Post them again, don't post them again, they're irrelevant.

 

[Natural Citizen]

It is true that the Federal Reserve had to be created in order to have a uniform common currency.
It is also true, that the common currency allowed for an income tax, where it would not have been possible without a common currency.

That said, I don't think the Federal Reserve could not operating without an income tax. Of course it could. There were many central banks that governments had, which existed before a universal income tax.

The Federal Reserve could operate from any tax base at all. Sales tax. Estate tax. Tariffs. You name it.

Nevertheless, none of that really matters. Here's the bottom line....

We're not going back to a commodity backed currency. Just write that down, and memorize it, and move on. It will never happen.

Fed this, and 1913 that... it's nice to have little history lessons, but we're not going back to a pre-1913 era. It will never happen.

Better to spend your time arguing for positions that have the possibility of happening, then living in a dream land where we could get rid of the Fed. It's not happening.

If we did that... if we had some sort of revolution in the US, and revolutionaries somehow got into government, and wiped out the Federal Reserve, and went back to a gold standard or something, the net result would be to utterly wipe out the US as a world super power. It would push us back not only to the policies of 1913, but we'd end up being 1913. We would regress as a nation a 100 years.

I think we're witnessing the end of the Fed by its own doing anyway. It's clearly demonstrating that it's lost control of the cost of money.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well, a bank takes in $100 in deposits and loans out a fraction, for instance $90, while
holding $10 in reserve.

Except that now there's $190 in existence from the $100 dollars that that sparky deposited.

Sparky's bank account still say that he has 100 dollars even though they stole $90 of it? It's because the bank left IOUs that it created called 'bank credit' in its place.

To reference the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, they say that "Commercial banks create checkbook money whenever they grant a loan, simply by adding new deposit dollars in accounts on their books in exchange for a borrower's IOU."

These are nothing but numbers that the banks type into their computers. And even though these 'bank credit' IOU numbers are very different from 'base currency' numbers, because they only exist in computers, they are still 'currency.'

So here they've again inflated the money supply.

So the borrower takes the $90 that the bank loaned to him from sparky's account and he pays the seller of an item. Then the seller deposits that money into his account and his bank loans out 90% of that currency and again leaves bank credits in its place. So now there are $271 in existence from the original 90 taken from Sparky's bank account. This process repeats and repeats and repeats until it's under a 10% reserve ratio and all backed by $100 of ''vault cash."

Except that now there's $190 in existence from the $100 dollars that that sparky deposited.

Okay. So what?

Sparky's bank account still say that he has 100 dollars even though they stole $90 of it?

Stole? Did he freely deposit the $100?
Does he not understand that his $100 can be lent out?
He isn't one of those idiots who thinks the bank has a little vault with his name on it where
his $100 will sit until he withdraws it, is he?

It's because the bank left IOUs that it created called 'bank credit' in its place.​

You've discovered the secret, most of the money supply is "bank credit".​

​

So the borrower takes the $90 that the bank loaned to him from sparky's account and he pays the seller of an item. Then the seller deposits that money into his account and his bank loans out 90% of that currency and again leaves bank credits in its place. So now there are $271 in existence from the original 90 taken from Sparky's bank account. This process repeats and repeats and repeats until it's under a 10% reserve ratio and all backed by $100 of ''vault cash"​

Yup. Just like they did it when Sparky's deposit was $100 of gold and silver coins.​

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It is true that the Federal Reserve had to be created in order to have a uniform common currency.
It is also true, that the common currency allowed for an income tax, where it would not have been possible without a common currency.

That said, I don't think the Federal Reserve could not operating without an income tax. Of course it could. There were many central banks that governments had, which existed before a universal income tax.

The Federal Reserve could operate from any tax base at all. Sales tax. Estate tax. Tariffs. You name it.

Nevertheless, none of that really matters. Here's the bottom line....

We're not going back to a commodity backed currency. Just write that down, and memorize it, and move on. It will never happen.

Fed this, and 1913 that... it's nice to have little history lessons, but we're not going back to a pre-1913 era. It will never happen.

Better to spend your time arguing for positions that have the possibility of happening, then living in a dream land where we could get rid of the Fed. It's not happening.

If we did that... if we had some sort of revolution in the US, and revolutionaries somehow got into government, and wiped out the Federal Reserve, and went back to a gold standard or something, the net result would be to utterly wipe out the US as a world super power. It would push us back not only to the policies of 1913, but we'd end up being 1913. We would regress as a nation a 100 years.

I think we're witnessing the end of the Fed by its own doing anyway. It's clearly demonstrating that it's lost control of the cost of money.

It's clearly demonstrating that it's lost control of the cost of money.

Post anything that ever showed they controlled the cost of money.
Or where they claimed they controlled the cost of money.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Post anything that ever showed they controlled the cost of money.
Or where they claimed they controlled the cost of money.

Do you even know what the price of money means, Toddster? Do you understand the concept of purchasing power?

Tell me what you think the price of money means and then I'll decide if I wanna trade keystrokes with you about it.

In the mean time I'm jumping off here for the day. I've been on here way too long today.

I'll check back on you later.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Post anything that ever showed they controlled the cost of money.
Or where they claimed they controlled the cost of money.

Do you even know what the price of money means, Toddster? Do you understand the concept of purchasing power?

Tell me what you think the price of money means and then I'll decide if I wanna trade keystrokes with you about it.

In the mean time I'm jumping off here for the day. I've been on here way too long today.

I'll check back on you later.

Do you even know what the price of money means, Toddster? Do you understand the concept of purchasing power?

I do. I understand.

Tell me what you think the price of money means

The price of money is how much it takes to buy goods and services.

 

[sparky]

Toddster, until you learn what money is you're not really ready to discuss cost.

Feel free to post your irrelevant definition.

You need to demonstrate that you have some rudimentary grasp on what a store of value means.

Feel free to post your irrelevant definition.

I have. Several times over. And did so again in this thread. It's like talking to the wall with you, man.

Post them again, don't post them again, they're irrelevant.

Math is hard, harder if you're a liberal.....

~S~

 

[sparky]

It is true that the Federal Reserve had to be created in order to have a uniform common currency.
It is also true, that the common currency allowed for an income tax, where it would not have been possible without a common currency.

That said, I don't think the Federal Reserve could not operating without an income tax. Of course it could. There were many central banks that governments had, which existed before a universal income tax.

The Federal Reserve could operate from any tax base at all. Sales tax. Estate tax. Tariffs. You name it.

Nevertheless, none of that really matters. Here's the bottom line....

We're not going back to a commodity backed currency. Just write that down, and memorize it, and move on. It will never happen.

Fed this, and 1913 that... it's nice to have little history lessons, but we're not going back to a pre-1913 era. It will never happen.

Better to spend your time arguing for positions that have the possibility of happening, then living in a dream land where we could get rid of the Fed. It's not happening.

If we did that... if we had some sort of revolution in the US, and revolutionaries somehow got into government, and wiped out the Federal Reserve, and went back to a gold standard or something, the net result would be to utterly wipe out the US as a world super power. It would push us back not only to the policies of 1913, but we'd end up being 1913. We would regress as a nation a 100 years.

I think we're witnessing the end of the Fed by its own doing anyway. It's clearly demonstrating that it's lost control of the cost of money.

I'm told those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

The Jekyll island contingent first met after a 'run on banks' a few years prior, convincing then governance centralization was the key to a stabilized monetary system

Of note would be those original players ancestors still rule the roost
The Federal Reserve Cartel – Eight Families own the USA #BIS, IMF, World Bank – Dean Henderson - Herland Report

not more than 15 years after the creation of our Fed reserve,came the '29 crash

after which Congressional response was the Glass Steagal 'leash' ,, mitigating to extent the 'bank profits via public risk'

FF this through 1/2 century of keynesian policies , then another 1/2 century after leaving the gold standard , and into the Financial Services Modernization Act, essentially allowing commercial banking to follow Wall Street's high-risk speculative crap shoot

Ending in a Congressional crescendo with this blabbering fool hat in hand...

followed by this banking executive's 'fix'>>>

as well as the cast of wall street tools

and we start to see how our debt driven system really works

socialism for the rich.....capitalism for the rest of us....

2020, and this isn't even news worthy anymore....

~S~

 

[sparky]

The Federal Reserve was ordered through a Freedom of Information Act request to release 28,000 pages of documents in March 2011. The documents exposed that one of the largest recipients of the Federal Reserve’s money was foreign banks during the 2008 economic meltdown. The top foreign banks that received money were the Brussells and Paris based Dexia SA, the Dublin based Depfa Bank Plc, the Bank of China and Arab Banking Corp., according to Campaign for Liberty.


&&&&&


In July 2011, due to a provision under the misguided Dodd-Frank financial overhaul law, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) conducted a one-time, watered-down audit of the Federal Reserve. The GAO investigators were not allowed to view most of the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy decisions including discount window lending, open-market operations and details on its transactions with foreign governments and banks. This first ever audit of the Federal Reserve revealed $16 trillion in secret bailouts to corporations and banks around the world in less than three years. These bailouts happened without a single vote taking place in any chamber of Congress.


~S~

 

[sparky]

What is the Fed?

~S~

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It is true that the Federal Reserve had to be created in order to have a uniform common currency.
It is also true, that the common currency allowed for an income tax, where it would not have been possible without a common currency.

That said, I don't think the Federal Reserve could not operating without an income tax. Of course it could. There were many central banks that governments had, which existed before a universal income tax.

The Federal Reserve could operate from any tax base at all. Sales tax. Estate tax. Tariffs. You name it.

Nevertheless, none of that really matters. Here's the bottom line....

We're not going back to a commodity backed currency. Just write that down, and memorize it, and move on. It will never happen.

Fed this, and 1913 that... it's nice to have little history lessons, but we're not going back to a pre-1913 era. It will never happen.

Better to spend your time arguing for positions that have the possibility of happening, then living in a dream land where we could get rid of the Fed. It's not happening.

If we did that... if we had some sort of revolution in the US, and revolutionaries somehow got into government, and wiped out the Federal Reserve, and went back to a gold standard or something, the net result would be to utterly wipe out the US as a world super power. It would push us back not only to the policies of 1913, but we'd end up being 1913. We would regress as a nation a 100 years.

I think we're witnessing the end of the Fed by its own doing anyway. It's clearly demonstrating that it's lost control of the cost of money.

I'm told those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

The Jekyll island contingent first met after a 'run on banks' a few years prior, convincing then governance centralization was the key to a stabilized monetary system

Of note would be those original players ancestors still rule the roost
The Federal Reserve Cartel – Eight Families own the USA #BIS, IMF, World Bank – Dean Henderson - Herland Report

not more than 15 years after the creation of our Fed reserve,came the '29 crash

after which Congressional response was the Glass Steagal 'leash' ,, mitigating to extent the 'bank profits via public risk'

FF this through 1/2 century of keynesian policies , then another 1/2 century after leaving the gold standard , and into the Financial Services Modernization Act, essentially allowing commercial banking to follow Wall Street's high-risk speculative crap shoot

Ending in a Congressional crescendo with this blabbering fool hat in hand...

followed by this banking executive's 'fix'>>>

as well as the cast of wall street tools

and we start to see how our debt driven system really works

socialism for the rich.....capitalism for the rest of us....

2020, and this isn't even news worthy anymore....

~S~

the Financial Services Modernization Act, essentially allowing commercial banking to follow Wall Street's high-risk speculative crap shoot

I know, mortgages are the worst!

I'm told those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

The ignorant keep repeating your ignorance.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Federal Reserve was ordered through a Freedom of Information Act request to release 28,000 pages of documents in March 2011. The documents exposed that one of the largest recipients of the Federal Reserve’s money was foreign banks during the 2008 economic meltdown. The top foreign banks that received money were the Brussells and Paris based Dexia SA, the Dublin based Depfa Bank Plc, the Bank of China and Arab Banking Corp., according to Campaign for Liberty.


&&&&&


In July 2011, due to a provision under the misguided Dodd-Frank financial overhaul law, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) conducted a one-time, watered-down audit of the Federal Reserve. The GAO investigators were not allowed to view most of the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy decisions including discount window lending, open-market operations and details on its transactions with foreign governments and banks. This first ever audit of the Federal Reserve revealed $16 trillion in secret bailouts to corporations and banks around the world in less than three years. These bailouts happened without a single vote taking place in any chamber of Congress.


~S~

This first ever audit of the Federal Reserve revealed $16 trillion in secret bailouts to corporations and banks around the world in less than three years. These bailouts happened without a single vote taking place in any chamber of Congress.


Short-term, collateralized loans, paid back at a profit.