@Reiver, I expect you're posting to @Natural Citizen since I don't see who you're quoting and I have him on "ignore", but you may know that all I was able to get out of the lad was fluff and bluster and no reliably sourced facts. He also tries to distract and intimidate with personal attacks to hide his lack of such facts. All-in-all I found communicating with him to be a waste of time, hence he is on "ignore". Good luck. Your replies look very good.
I won't quote it all here, but it's misinformed. Almost all money is created by commercial banks through lending, not by the government or the Fed. That would be you.
How easily you forget morality. You celebrate an imperialist that asked for field guns to be put on street corners against his own people. Of course your morality is fluid. It isn't real. Its about hiding from economic comment that makes sense. Pathetic.
Apparently you didn't read what I wrote. Which is comical. Fractional reserve lending was explained precisly and thoroughly. You people seem to not know a thing how our monetary system works. It's apparent. Here. I'll repeat. Again. For lik ethe fourth time. Step1: The politicians aren't running on the idea of spending less. They instead say ''vote for me because I'll make sure that the government provides you with more free stuff than my opponent say's he will. The government then creates glorified IOUs via Treasury Bonds. These bonds increase our national debt and put the public on the hook to pay it back. Step2: IOUs are swapped to create 'currency.' The Treasury sells the bonds to the banks. The banks then turn around and sell our national debt at a profit to the Federal Reserve, which they likely own. Again, the share holders receive annually a 6% dividend. From the Fed's own webpage. The Federal Reserve then opens its checkbook which is from an account without a penny in it and buys those IOU with their own IOW in the form of the check from an account with 0 balance.They give those checks to the banks and 'currency' is created out of thin air. Then the whole process repeats over and over and over again. This results in a build-up of bonds at the Federal Reserve and a build-up of currency at the Treasury which is really just a supply of numbers. The Treasury then deposits the numbers into the various branches of the government and then we get to step 3. Step 3: The politicians who ran on giving free stuff say, 'hey thanks for that.'' Then the government spends the numbers on promises, public works, social programs, and yes, wars. Unconstitutional, undeclared, imperialist military occupation all over the world. Then government employees soldiers, military contractors, weapons manufacturers, and everybody else deposit their pay into the banks. Then we get to step 4. Step 4: The banks multiply the numbers by magically creating more IOU through fractional reserve lending where they steal a portion of everyone's deposit and lend it out. That 'currency' gets redeposited and then a portion is stolen again. And the process repeats over andover and over again, magnifying the currency supply exponentially. Then we the people work for some of those numbers. Which brings us to step 5 where our numbers are taxed. Step 5: We pay tax to the IRS who then turns out numbers over to theTreasury so the Treasury can pay the principal plus the interest on bonds that were purchased by the Federal Reserve with a check from nothing. Then we get to step 6. The debt ceiling delusion. Step 6: The debt ceiling delusion.The system is designed to require ever-increasing levels of debt and will eventually collapse under its own weight because politicians and pundits always kick the can down the road so it doesn't happen on their watch. And finally, we get to step 7. Secret owners take their cut. Step 7: The world's largest banks own the Federal Reserve. Those banks make a profit selling our national debt to the Federal Reserve. They make a profit when the Federal Reserve pays them interest on the reserves held at the Federal Reserve, and the Federal Reserve pays them a 6% dividend on their ownership of the Federal Reserve. This system is fundamentally evil. It funnels wealth from the working population to the government and the banking sector. It is the cause of the artificial booms and busts of modern economies and it causes great disparity of wealth between the rich and the poor, middle class, and seniors. The working class. And it is only possible because we no longer use real money. We use 'currency.' Worst of all, it is a form of enslavement. Bond is the root word of bondage. Whenever a government issues a bond, it is a promise to make us pay tax in the future.
As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!" None of which is incompatible with capitalism: private ownership and control of the means of production (land and capital) for private profit. Free market capitalism is logically impossible. Capitalism requires private ownership of land, which inherently forces everyone to subsidize landowners. Forced subsidies can't exist in a free market. You need to get a better dictionary. Not me. I say capitalism is bad, but socialism is worse. Nope. Which is not collective ownership of the means of production. Nope. You said it...
Bah. I'm sorry, but I feel like I'm talking to the wall with you drones. Clearly none of the three of you socialists understand the debate. My advice is try to lay oof the red helmets vs the blue helmets and maybe try to find time to study economic theory. It's the only way you're ever going to understand our monetary policy.
But you don't base that on economics. You morality rant. Rant mind you that calls an imperialist who celebrated concentration camps 'a great man'. Next time you try and use morality, have a think!
I did. And it is comical. But inaccurately. It has little to do with fractional reserves, and some countries have even dropped their reserve requirements with little effect on monetary outcomes. Banks can always borrow reserves to cover their lending. The point is that the loan proceeds are CREATED by the loan, to balance the loan asset. They do not come out of any other account. Your description is what I call the fairy tale version, which you have simply repeated. Look at any accounting textbook that covers banking, and you will see that you are wrong. Mirror time. That is not how it works. Banks do not lend out customer deposits, which are used as reserves. Banks CREATE the money they lend as a bookkeeping entry to balance the loan asset.
You need to be more accurate. Tell him to read Churchill's "After Concentration Camps, Think Monetarism"?
Your distance from understanding the debate is measured by having called me a socialist. That's comical, coming from a guy who just posted the fairy tale version.
To be fair, you don't know know what a socialist is. You have no means therefore to determine whether you are one or you aren't
Sure I do. Capitalism is better than socialism because when socialists steal capital, it reduces the amount of capital available for production, but when capitalists steal land, it does not reduce the amount of land available for production. <yawn> You call identification of moral context "ranting." Who cares how you misuse words? Informed people know Churchill was a great man -- whose almost single-handed defiance of the most prolific and notorious user of concentration camps saved the world from fascist catastrophe. Your attempt to derogate a man who was so obviously and immeasurably your moral and intellectual superior is despicable. <yawn> As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"
This is rant. Steal? Define it. Provide accurate economic modelling to derive conclusion. Your sub-Georgist routine won't wash, especially when you cheer someone that condemned whole nations to misery. You apply morality without thought. I've seen better comments from right wing cretins. Pathetic! Millions of people stopped fascism. Churchill didn't. You support someone that had no moral compass. You hero worship someone that supported concentration camps. Your morality rant isn't even consistent.
Appropriate what is rightfully others' without securing their consent or making just compensation. ROTFL!!! You could as relevantly ask for a detailed astrological chart of "Dianetics." <yawn> You are again unable to make any relevant response, and so are reliant on invoking, irrelevantly, the name "Henry George" as a kind of magical incantation to prevent yourself from knowing facts about land. Content-free filth. No doubt you find them better. But they couldn't have done it without LEADERSHIP, which at the crucial moment, only Churchill provided. Who did more than Churchill? Stalin? Talk about concentration camps! Absurd, disingenuous, and baseless. As usual. You made that up. You have simply decided to derogate Churchill because he told the truth about land. For some reason you have decided that you will always contrive some sort of scurrilous, baseless, and disingenuous attack on anyone who tells the truth about land. But that tells your readers more about you than about them. I see. So, the fact that Churchill wasn't Gandhi means he couldn't have been right about land? Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that. You are an utter waste of... well, everything.
An advocate of collective ownership of the means of production (land and capital), as any good dictionary would inform you, if you were willing to be informed.
Its like talking to a child. I'll try again: show how socialists steal capital The rest of your one liners can be ignored. Given you support an imperialist we know your morality argument is bogus.
Refer to the economics! It wasn't difficult. What does socialism mean? Refer to the political economic result.
Do you know what "collective ownership" means? How is it to be obtained, if a private capital owner declines to sell to the collective? ROTFL!! Your attempts to besmirch the name of a man whose boots you are unfit to lick clean are despicable.
