Debt backed currency is malicious and a privatized bank is retarded. The bank should be nationalized and the currency should be backed by labor. The boom & bust cycle is flawed and is a way to exploit the working class
LifeFuel The One Good Thing About Western Society is Our Banking System
Kike Rothschild infiltration
What has become of any country which doesn't have these banks? Every single last one is a useless shithole.
Nonsense. Id rather live in north Korea than the faggot west
The Federal Reserve is private in name only.
It is owned by kikes
seriously
so fucking annoying
And how do you become prosperous and productive? Deficit spending is what allows for that. Pentagon research funds greatly enhanced American productivity. Interstate highways allowed for internal trade. High-speed rail projects through Japan greatly accelerated them forwards.
No you wouldn't.
B
Your viewpoint is extremely naive or uninformed at best. Nations which haven't been brought to heel through privatized central banking (or majority privately owned) are doing relatively fine on their own.
Hasn't history of the Rothschild banking family taught you anything?
This argument is asinine. You're arguing for printing paper so that you can use your own resources to develop your own nation. Money is just a debt note, so instead of printing a whole bunch of paper debt notes on interest from some private entity, you keep your own debt ledger and pay back your own people who labored to build the roads and rail projects and whatever else. That way, the people are building their own nation, own the things in their own nation, and aren't indebted to anyone.
Stfu dumb k1ke nobody asked you
Ultimate proof neo conservatives are spineless traitors JFL
Your system would yield major inflation and result in monetary injections at the wrong times. What if the economy was overstimulated and you wanted to build a bridge? Printing money would have disastrous results. It's best to leave the money printing to the FED and have the government operate like a non-money-printing entity. That way monetary expansions aren't politicized, or at least not as much.
B
If the bridge is needed, it would already have been built in an "overstimulated economy" (whatever that's supposed to mean). The same for roads and other infrastructural necessities. The US central bank was installed a few years before WW1, but roads, for example, were being built since the start of civilization.
You're just conjecturing based on current theories and models. That's fine, but accept that you may be incorrect. Besides, economists are notorious for being inaccurate.
No it wouldn't. There's lots of public works needed in a high-inflation low-unemployment economy that doesn't get done for various reasons.
We could build more with central planning. And that was a different world, we didn't have needs for intelligence agencies and stuff like that back then.
I accept I may be incorrect, but I think my system is the best guess at a proper civilization.
B
Right, but that's already assuming a high-inflation, low-unemployment economy. It's kind of like an aeronautical engineer assuming that there's no air friction and designing the hull of a craft around that assumption. If the bridge needs building, a government will need to spend its resources in its construction. And if there aren't enough resources for that, then, not only was there a colossal fuck up somewhere in the chain of organization and management, but the need for the bridge and why the nation must incur a debt for this bridge needs to be justified in the first place.
Then the best we can reasonably say is that the current system is probably optimal, given our current conditions and circumstances. The error would be thinking that it applies universally in the general case.
Yes, assuming we have an overstimulated the economy, it would make sense for the government to REALLOCATE resources via PRIVATE SECTOR BORROWINGS to fund the expansion of the bridge.
If we are in an understimulated economy, it would make sense for the government to PRINT MONEY and fund the bridge, since we need more economic stimulation anyway.
Either way, it's best to just let the government run as a constrained budgeters, and give the money printing powers to the central bank to smoothen out the credit cycle. When we need monetary expansion, the central bank will print money and buy debt, in high-times, they will sell government debt. Money will be printed at the optimal times, and not whenever the government wants to spend money.
Fair enough.
2008 wasn't enough of a buttfuck for the west, apparently.
B
What does printing more money accomplish? I mean, really. What are you actually doing when you press a button to print out x amount of dollars? You didn't produce anything. You didn't add to your total resources. You've arguably added "value" in terms of labor and the output of that labor, but you didn't need to print more of your interest-bearing marked and serial numbered Monopoly money to do that. The total number of resources (raw materials) didn't go up, it just got rearranged when you added labor to it.
All you've done is create more debt in circulation, reduced people's purchasing power, and inflated the value of the already-existing goods and services. Now you've created a need to keep printing more Monopoly money to match the value of the labor needed, but that continues the spiral inward into implosion. It's like a cancerous tissue. It needs to keep spreading and increasing to keep feeding itself, because it consumed and grew bigger, but now it needs to consume even more, else it dies off. Except it has no choice but to repeat that cycle until there's nothing left of the host and it dies off anyway.
The underlying problems aren't resolved. It's just an ignoring of the problem until the house of cards collapses and then it's version 2.0 from a new start.
Exactly, but often times, printing money is the most efficient way of allocating resources, namely in a recession.
How has more debt been added? You printed money, not borrowed it.
Yes but that's the point, you hurt creditors and subsidize debtors when you print money, which is sometimes a good thing.
No, there's no need to keep printing more. Sometimes it's good to print money, get some inflation going, and then stop... and let the inflation cool down.
So why does every country in the world print money? Assuming they have the ability?
This nigga likes quantitative easing. @Transcended Trucel brother u can’t defend quantitative easing it’s fucking us up horribly rn
Without it the economy would implode.
Because our economy is based on a shitty system
It's the best system possible.
they need to experiment with new economic models on a micro scale. Maybe test it in small states or cities. Current model is unsustainable in the long run.
B
It's not the printing of a currency that's the problem. Money is one of the most useful abstractions we have, as no other tool can adequately serve to incentivize people to do anything.
It's the fact that it's done A) to inject money in the money supply to satisfy a market demand (like labor) with nothing extra to back it, thus, causing inflation and other problems, and B) doing so on interest (from a private bank), which compounds (no pun intended) the problems in A.
Last edited:
I wish I was clever like you
Nah man usury is evil
B
It's one of the reasons Jews were so disliked all throughout history.
Yup they’ve been kicked out of 109 countries for a reason
Our money today is the only money in the world with backing, it's backed on TAXATION, the fact that you need it for taxes. Second is the fact that private banks don't print money, the central bank does.
B
You basically just said government funny money is backed by government force to take back some of that funny money it makes out of thin air and gives you.
That's not...how do you even... You know what, forget it.
THat's what gives it value you fucking retard.
You basically just said government funny money is backed by government force to take back some of that funny money it makes out of thin air and gives you.
That's not...how do you even... You know what, forget it.
B
That's not how this works. Something isn't intrinsically valuable because someone says it is. And you're calling others retarded. So much for "muh high IQ." JFL
You're just creating a game where you say, as the authority of making decisions for everyone else because you have the biggest and most guns, that this paper you just created has value, and everyone has to agree or not get to live and sustain themselves unless they agree to this and enter the game that's been made up for them.
You're so fucking stupid it's incredible, it's not because "they say it is", it's because you'll go to prison and get RAPED by Tyrone if you don't pay it, not going to prison and getting raped is intrinsic valuable, unless you're gay.
Yes, that's how it works, stupid
Yes, that's how it works, stupid.
B
WHAT THE FUCK AM I READING?
Was it economics you studied at an Ivy league school? Because if you did, you need ask for a refund. You're the biggest case of the Dunning-Kruger effect that I've ever seen on the forum, and that's saying something.
Please continue posting, though.
You're white trash, i have no use to speak with you further.WHAT THE FUCK AM I READING?
Was it economics you studied at an Ivy league school? Because if you did, you need ask for a refund. You're the biggest case of the Dunning-Kruger effect that I've ever seen on the forum, and that's saying something.
Please continue posting, though.
"what the fuck am i reading"
You sound like a midwit in some white trash class who can't understand a dumbed down lesson.
Again...
You are WHITE TRASH
B
I explained basic economics to you, you didn't understand, even the most understanding professor would write you off as "white trash"I'm whatever your fragile ego and psyche needs me to be, I suppose.
Good talk.
B
No, you've just been shilling for an interest-based debt system, while arguing that it's advantage comes from "providing opportunity."
You've just said that money has intrinsic value by government fiat under the threat of force. This is fundamentally and technically wrong, though it is what's happening in the current system and people have little choice but to accept it, unfortunately. Money is literally a "promissory note," which is just a fancy way of saying it's a universal IOU. The IOU itself has zero value, it's just a fucking piece of paper with a number on it. It's value comes from being backed by something with real, intrinsic value, like a natural resource that has utility. If you have nothing real to back your currency, you effectively have Monopoly play money with fancy counter-fraud measures built into it - and maybe some shiny, cool-looking holograms.
If you want to test an idea, you have to challenge it against edge-cases, asymptotic cases, and other extreme cases. If everyone in the current economic banking system decided to cash in their promissory notes to the government and asked for something like gold, silver, platinum, or other valuable resource, the entire system would collapse in a day and you'd have a huge percentage of people holding worthless notes (which they already do, but don't quite realize yet). The current system is an artificial house of cards designed to grow like a cancer, or eventually collapse one day under its own weight and leave vast swaths of people completely fucked. What are you going to do then, press a button and start printing a new kind of money?
Take a recent historical example to illustrate this fact of the fragility of this kind of system in use. Gaddaffi wanted to unite the African nations to do exactly this: demand resources in exchange for their countries' natural resources, namely gold. This would have toppled the house of cards practically overnight and destroyed dozens of national economies, especially in Europe, because there quite simply isn't enough resources to pay those African nations in exchange for their oil (with Libya having the most) to keep up with the demands of their national economies back home. Because they couldn't let their fraudulent system be exposed and collapse, thus losing much of their control over their own countries, the "powers that be" pursued an aggressive campaign against him, full of propaganda, mercenaries (sorry, "contractors") to train a rebel insurgency with supplied weapons, and manufactured public support against him. They swiftly and ruthlessly deposed and killed him to protect their corrupt system.
And nobody even fucking remembers or cares what happened.
Are you your family members bankers, by any chance, or have you simply drunk too much of the Kool-Aid they fed you in university? Why do I even bother asking, you don't answer these types of questions anyway.
Last edited:
But that wouldn't happen because people NEED the promissory note to pay taxes. It's like saying "if everyone agreed to stop drinking water and stop using it, water would be useless". People NEED water to survive just like they NEED cash.
That's actually a perfect example of proof the USD has real value, if any dictator or leader tries to screw with it, the entire force of NATO comes down and destroys them. Gaddafi is proof the USD is so valuable and it can topple governments that try to skirt around it, not just jail non-tax paying citizens.
I have involvement.
B
You're using the need to pay taxes as an explanation for why money has intrinsic value....
There's a basic failure of understanding on your part here that, unless we somehow find a way past it, we're just going to be spinning our wheels.
And I won't even begin to explain why your water analogy is poor, because it would simply fall on deaf ears.
There's that failure of understanding again. Threat of force is not what gives a monetary currency its value. Real world resources do, which are numerically represented by your currency, and, of course supply and demand. Saying that something has value because if you don't use it someone will hurt you is profoundly stupid, if not outright evil. And you're telling others to learn economics? Are you fucking serious?
Said differently, that you're using the threat of force to ensure the use of a currency as an example of why it has value shows misunderstanding at best and a nefarious agenda at worst.
Intentionally vague, but OK, whatever. It was becoming apparent that you had a vested, material interest in this beyond merely an ideological conviction.
I don't want to hear it, you have a lack of understanding of economics.
But why trade these resources in dollars? The answer is because the state FORCES you to. If you want resources, you need USD, otherwise you can't acquire resources because you'll be charged with tax evasion.
Holy shit you're incredibly dumb and economically illiterate, YES, THAT'S THE DEFINITION OF GOVERNMENT, a MONOPOLY ON VIOLENCE, GOVERNMENTS WORK THROUGH VIOLENCE AND FORCESaying that something has value because if you don't use it someone will hurt you is profoundly stupid, if not outright evil. And you're telling others to learn economics? Are you fucking serious?
Said differently, that you're using the threat of force to ensure the use of a currency as an example of why it has value shows misunderstanding at best and a nefarious agenda at worst.
They're not mutually exclusive.
B
And you can't understand simple concepts and abstractions, and so here we are.
Yes, thank you for explaining to us all how governments operate.
Let me just ask this bluntly. Do you understand the concepts of intrinsic and extrinsic value? If you don't, I'll illustrate them both with a simple example: All human beings have the same intrinsic value, but a genius inventor and a lobotomized paraplegic have different extrinsic values.
No shit.
You can't understand hypotheticals. You honestly write like you have a disability where you can't conceptualize ideas.
B
OK, that's enough attention for you.
Enjoy being added to my ignore list troll.
Similar threads
Mentally lost cel
Stupid Clown
Users who are viewing this thread
