BackAgain
Neutronium Member & truth speaker #StopBrandon
So far, you’re the one demonstrating the ignorance.Continue being ignorant on the topic here.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
So far, you’re the one demonstrating the ignorance.Continue being ignorant on the topic here.
It's not ''money.''
To be ''money,'' there has to be a store of value.
What you're calling ''money'' is nothing more than a receipt for a claim check on an IOU bond.
It's monetized debt.
All of the ''base currency''...because that's what it actually is...that is piling up is just a supply of numbers.
And, for the record, there is always more debt in the system than there is ''currency'' in existence to pay the debt. I've explained why this is probably a guh zillion of times before around here.
You fail to identify what you now pretend were a “bunch of errors.”
You fail to support your claim.You didn't answer my question. Try again?
So far, you’re the one demonstrating the ignorance.
Well according to the Boston Federal Reserve's ''Putting it Simply," they say that ''When you or I write a check, there must be sufficient funds in our account to cover the check, but when the Federal Reserve writes a check, there is no bank deposit on which that check is drawn. When the Federal Reserve writes a check, it is creating ''money.”He was wrong.
Well according to the Boston Federal Reserve's ''Putting it Simply," they say that ''When you or I write a check, there must be sufficient funds in our account to cover the check, but when the Federal Reserve writes a check, there is no bank deposit on which that check is drawn. When the Federal Reserve writes a check, it is creating ''money.”
Of course, it isn't actually ''money.''
It's ''currency.''
Again, to be ''money,'' there must be a store of value.
Anyway. The Federal Reserve then hands those checks to the banks and at this point ''currency'' springs into existence. The banks then take that ''currency'' and buy more bonds at the next Treasury auction.
"Open Market Operations,'' I think it's called?
It's just a shell game, really.
Every single "dollar" in circulation since 1913 was first "borrowed" into circulation from them.....
There are more "dollars" in circulation than have been lent out by the Fed. By a wide margin.
''When you or I write a check, there must be sufficient funds in our account to cover the check, but when the Federal Reserve writes a check, there is no bank deposit on which that check is drawn. When the Federal Reserve writes a check, it is creating ''money.”
It's true, the Federal Reserve is allowed to create "money".
Anyway. The Federal Reserve then hands those checks to the banks and at this point ''currency'' springs into existence. The banks then take that ''currency'' and buy more bonds at the next Treasury auction.
The Fed "hands a check to a bank"?
For what purpose? Is the Fed giving the banks free "currency"?
Call it wahat you want, it;s still just monetized debt. It's not actually ''money.''
But let us expand on what you just said. Because you just said the quiet part out loud.
Regarding that first ''borrowed dollar'' you invoked there.
There was interest due on that bond, and there is interest due on every one of those loans'''' that the banks made. That means that there is interest due on every dollar in existence.
So. If you borrow the very first dollar in existence, as you said, and you promise to pay it back plus another dollar's worth of interest, where do you get the second dollar to pay the interest? The answer is that you have to borrow that dollar into existence and promise to pay it back with interest as well. So, now there are 2 dollars in existence, but you now owe 4. And so on, and so on, and so on, and so on. It keeps happening over and over and over again. The result is that there is never enough ''currency'' to pay the debt. There is, as I correctly said, always more debt in the system than there is ''currency'' in existence to pay the debt.
Therefore the entire system is impossible. It is finite. It will come to an end one day.
What would happen if the government stopped borrowing to do deficit spending?
Are the payments on those Treasury bonds going to stop?
What would happen if the public stopped borrowing and going deeper into debt?
Are your house and car payments going to stop?
No. They're not.
There is a payment due every month on the principal plus the interest on every dollar in existence and those payments do not stop.
If we stop ''borrowing,'' then no new '''currency' is created to replace the 'currency' that we used to make those payments.
Whether you're making a payment on a loan or paying a tax to make a payment on a Treasury bond, the portion of the payment that goes to pay off the principal extinguishes that portion of the debt.
BUT...the debt also extinguishes the ''currency.''
When currency and debt meet, they destroy each other.
If we just pay off the principal only, all of the loans and Treasury bonds that exist, the entire ''currency'' supply vanishes.
So, if we don't go deeper into debt every year, the whole thing goes into a deflationary collapse under the weight of those payments.
Sorry you’re too cowardly to defend your own clams.I'm sorry that you're clueless about how banking works.
You're not alone, many people on the left and the right don't understand.
Yep. You cowardly puss. You failed to defend your own claims.
Sorry you’re too cowardly to defend your own clams.
The economy was a disaster in the aftermath of WWI. Cal ignored the calls to “DO SOMETHING!!” and stepped aside and let the markets reprice wages, assets and debts.That was awesome! What did the Federal Reserve do and when did Cal give them the finger?
The ones you made.Which claims do I need to defend?
The economy was a disaster in the aftermath of WWI. Cal ignored the calls to “DO SOMETHING!!” and stepped aside and let the markets reprice wages, assets and debts.
The economy started horribly, but just a shade better than the FDR Depression. The difference was that without government intervention the market boomed, unemployment plummeted and the Roaring 20s began in earnest.
The ones you made.
No. Go back and re-read what you, yourself, posted. I’m not your errand boy.Be more specific.