“IT'S NOT WHAT BACKS OUR MONEY, IT'S WHO CONTROLS ITS QUANTITY”
Bill Still
You need to study some history of economics. The Fiat money invented in ancient Rome. It was the most revolutionary economic system.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=7qIhDdST27g#t=738
Topic: The banks should be repealed - page 3. (Read 2479 times)
Politics is impossible to stay out of money. We are not living in a police state. People decide about their money.
But human society has done fine for millennia with the state mostly or completely out of money. (The state might have minted gold or silver coins and extracted a 'seigniorage'. When this became too big people looked for alternative monies.)
Only after the Renaissance, when economic growth was so good that governments and banks could receive a lot of free power and wealth by manipulating money, and still keep the economy more or less stable and prosperous (including using imperial devices to shift most of the pain to poorer countries,) that largely-or-completely state-based money has been possible, at least so far.
Politics is impossible to stay out of money. We are not living in a police state. People decide about their money.
I think, it is a good idea. It is more democratic system.
Democratic system we have in our countries as now is closer to fiction than to real democracy from our textbooks. You think that people have the choice and elect their representatives, not really, it is just giant puppet show. The only way money should be created is not by financial institutions (Central Bank) or political structures (Ministry of Finance) because there will be always problem how much money they print. They should disclose publicly how quantitative easing works, we need transparency in this sector more than anything.Well said but what other choice do we have? There must be some organization or institution that will keep an eye on. Also in times of economic collapse those institutions must intervene (of course in a right way). So I think the question is rather haw to make those institutions independent from politics and private banks.
Authorities should stay out of money totally. Money is the place of gold, silver, bitcoin, and any other form that doesn't require an authority. As soon as you have an authority, there is no way to make it independent, unless you can find the Knights of the Holy Grail and hire them.
The idea that financial crashes require central banks and governments to save the world from ruin is based on the existence of such crashes in the first place. But these crashes are, without exception (going all the way back to the Dutch tulip bubble,) caused ultimately by the issue of money by some authority.
I think, it is a good idea. It is more democratic system.
Democratic system we have in our countries as now is closer to fiction than to real democracy from our textbooks. You think that people have the choice and elect their representatives, not really, it is just giant puppet show. The only way money should be created is not by financial institutions (Central Bank) or political structures (Ministry of Finance) because there will be always problem how much money they print. They should disclose publicly how quantitative easing works, we need transparency in this sector more than anything.Well said but what other choice do we have? There must be some organization or institution that will keep an eye on. Also in times of economic collapse those institutions must intervene (of course in a right way). So I think the question is rather haw to make those institutions independent from politics and private banks.
I think, it is a good idea. It is more democratic system.
Democratic system we have in our countries as now is closer to fiction than to real democracy from our textbooks. You think that people have the choice and elect their representatives, not really, it is just giant puppet show. The only way money should be created is not by financial institutions (Central Bank) or political structures (Ministry of Finance) because there will be always problem how much money they print. They should disclose publicly how quantitative easing works, we need transparency in this sector more than anything.
I think, it is a good idea. It is more democratic system.
The money must be printed by the Ministry of Finance. Do you agree?
the money should not be printed at all, there should be a fixed limit like with bitcoin, to raise the defaltion a bit, then you can start print again, when the inflation is extinguished
a cycle must be done to prevent another crisis like the current one
No. But the European system is crazy.
Normal banks are getting the money from the central bank. Then normal banks are lending it to EU countries.
That is the work around that the EU uses. I will lend you money for almost nothing and you can lend it for a bit more to a country that needs it.Normal banks are getting the money from the central bank. Then normal banks are lending it to EU countries.
It's classic EU bureaucracy, why do something in one step when you can pay a middle man and rerquire more steps than necessary.
I think central banks should actually be free from politics, they have a mandate, that is to keep inflation in line, everything else they do it playing politics.
No. But the European system is crazy.
Normal banks are getting the money from the central bank. Then normal banks are lending it to EU countries.
Normal banks are getting the money from the central bank. Then normal banks are lending it to EU countries.
Banks and politicians together take wealth from everyone else by issuing money and debt and using state power to prop up their values.
In this partnership, one cannot do without the other. The banks obviously want the state to guarantee their debt with taxpayer money, etc., but without banks, the state's issuance of money and debt would be severely limited by market pressure and public opinion. People would much more easily see state issued money and debt as a way to receive "free" wealth and power from the public.
Banks contribute brain power to this enterprise by dreaming up innovative assets that investors might believe in at least temporarily. The bank "deposit" was one of the greatest. Of late they have been securitizing mortgage and consumer debt. All of this provides a "use" for state issued money and debt so people don't use them to buy things, drive up inflation, and expose the over-issue of the state assets.
This is fundamentally why "too big to fail" and loose regulation aren't going away any time soon.
Politicians don't get elected by governing best. They get elected for making good use of the "free" money coming from issuing debt that savers still trust. They, as a class, are not going to eject their most profitable career partners without a fight.
In this partnership, one cannot do without the other. The banks obviously want the state to guarantee their debt with taxpayer money, etc., but without banks, the state's issuance of money and debt would be severely limited by market pressure and public opinion. People would much more easily see state issued money and debt as a way to receive "free" wealth and power from the public.
Banks contribute brain power to this enterprise by dreaming up innovative assets that investors might believe in at least temporarily. The bank "deposit" was one of the greatest. Of late they have been securitizing mortgage and consumer debt. All of this provides a "use" for state issued money and debt so people don't use them to buy things, drive up inflation, and expose the over-issue of the state assets.
This is fundamentally why "too big to fail" and loose regulation aren't going away any time soon.
Politicians don't get elected by governing best. They get elected for making good use of the "free" money coming from issuing debt that savers still trust. They, as a class, are not going to eject their most profitable career partners without a fight.
Aboslutely never let them to print it because the politician is got so many guile. They will get some and always keep for themself without anyone notice better let the bank do it for now. May be after sometime when bitcoin skyrocketing try to repeal bank then
No! Never!
That means total absence of any control. Like in Zimbabwe or Argentina. It's a bit safer when the control of the money supply is not in the hands of politicians. A bit safer I said, not much.
That means total absence of any control. Like in Zimbabwe or Argentina. It's a bit safer when the control of the money supply is not in the hands of politicians. A bit safer I said, not much.
The money must be printed by the Ministry of Finance. Do you agree?
Jump to: