| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
arjuna
Joined: 31 Mar 2007
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 11:12 pm Post subject: Money As Debt |
 |
|
Paul Grignon's 47-minute animated presentation of "Money as Debt" tells in very simple and effective graphic terms what money is and how it is being created. It is an entertaining way to get the message out. The Cowichan Citizens Coalition and its "Duncan Initiative" received high praise from those who previewed it. I recommend it as a painless but hard-hitting educational tool and encourage the widest distribution and use by all groups concerned with the present unsustainable monetary system in Canada and the United States
Money As Debt |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 12:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Err. Banks loan out more than they actually have. So they "create" money. I don't see this as a problem. People need to borrow the money. Loans create new businesses and jobs. The demand is there. If the banks didn't create the money then the government would have to. The government, however, has no incentive to make smart loans. It can just print more money if it makes a bad loan. Banks have profit motive. They can loan more than they have on the assumption they'll get it back. If they make a bad loan, it costs them. So they have a real incentive not to make bad loans.
Anything wrong with that? In short, if the banks didn't do it, the government would. And that might not be so smart. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jhaelin
Joined: 30 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 12:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
Err. Banks loan out more than they actually have. So they "create" money. I don't see this as a problem. People need to borrow the money. Loans create new businesses and jobs. The demand is there. If the banks didn't create the money then the government would have to. The government, however, has no incentive to make smart loans. It can just print more money if it makes a bad loan. Banks have profit motive. They can loan more than they have on the assumption they'll get it back. If they make a bad loan, it costs them. So they have a real incentive not to make bad loans.
Anything wrong with that? In short, if the banks didn't do it, the government would. And that might not be so smart. |
i would rather have elected officials in charge of printing the money, becasue:
1) we wouldn't have to pay the banks interests for printing and loaning us the money.
2) these people would be accountable and we would know who they are.
nether of these things are true today in the US.
we pay the FED to print our money.
and we have little control over who has control. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
arjuna
Joined: 31 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 12:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Banks create money and loan it out for profit. There is no labor involved. That is, there is no actual energy of any kind to substantiate the money. They are robbing others, in real and concrete terms.
Money created as needed is not a problem at all. As human activity increases, more money can be created to accomodate the increased activity. With no interest, and controlled by the government of the people, such money cannot be an instrument of theft. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 2:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| arjuna wrote: |
Banks create money and loan it out for profit. There is no labor involved. That is, there is no actual energy of any kind to substantiate the money. They are robbing others, in real and concrete terms.
Money created as needed is not a problem at all. As human activity increases, more money can be created to accomodate the increased activity. With no interest, and controlled by the government of the people, such money cannot be an instrument of theft. |
If you just print money, you get inflation. Been tried. North Korea, for example. The government wants to be popular. It has no profit motive. It has a vote motive. It will be happy to print money and loan money without regard to the ability to pay back. It might ruin the economy in the long term but it will get votes in the short term. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 4:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jhaelin wrote: |
1) we wouldn't have to pay the banks interests for printing and loaning us the money. |
Why would the government lend you money if there was no profit? The government should lend out money based on they control the commanding heights of the economy and know, mysteriously, which sectors of the economy need more and which need less? This is called a centrally planned economy. India tried something like that too. Failed miserably. Nice in theory. Don't work in practice. The best way to lend money is put the power in the hands of a guy who will lose his nice bank manager job if it misreads the local economy.
| Quote: |
| 2) these people would be accountable and we would know who they are. |
Banks are accountable too. First they're regulated. Second they're widely owned by the public and accountable to the shareholders. Voters can be very forgiving. I don't know many CEO who would survive flubbing Katrina and Iraq. Lastly, they accountable because they go out of business. What government goes out of business? If it makes a mistake it just raises taxes to pay for the mistake.
"Lend me money."
"No, you're a bad credit risk. Your idea sucks."
"I won't vote for you then."
"Okay, here is money."
vs
"Lend me money."
"No, you're a bad credit risk. Your idea sucks."
"I have no lever of control over you, Mr. Bank Manager?"
"No you don't."
"Oh. Umm. What can I do to convince you to change your mind?"
"Improve your credit rating and improve your business plan."
See how it works?
What appears so broken about the current system that it needs to be fixed? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jhaelin
Joined: 30 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 9:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| jhaelin wrote: |
1) we wouldn't have to pay the banks interests for printing and loaning us the money. |
Why would the government lend you money if there was no profit? The government should lend out money based on they control the commanding heights of the economy and know, mysteriously, which sectors of the economy need more and which need less? This is called a centrally planned economy. India tried something like that too. Failed miserably. Nice in theory. Don't work in practice. The best way to lend money is put the power in the hands of a guy who will lose his nice bank manager job if it misreads the local economy.
| Quote: |
| 2) these people would be accountable and we would know who they are. |
Banks are accountable too. First they're regulated. Second they're widely owned by the public and accountable to the shareholders. Voters can be very forgiving. I don't know many CEO who would survive flubbing Katrina and Iraq. Lastly, they accountable because they go out of business. What government goes out of business? If it makes a mistake it just raises taxes to pay for the mistake.
"Lend me money."
"No, you're a bad credit risk. Your idea sucks."
"I won't vote for you then."
"Okay, here is money."
vs
"Lend me money."
"No, you're a bad credit risk. Your idea sucks."
"I have no lever of control over you, Mr. Bank Manager?"
"No you don't."
"Oh. Umm. What can I do to convince you to change your mind?"
"Improve your credit rating and improve your business plan."
See how it works?
What appears so broken about the current system that it needs to be fixed? |
the local bank don't control the money supply the fed does.
the fed is a private entity and my question to you is...
who are the share holders?
since you will not be able to answer,
that is exactly my problem with the situation...
when was the last time you heard of the head of the fed being fired for getting it wrong? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jhaelin wrote: |
the local bank don't control the money supply the fed does. |
The argument is banks create money by lending out more than they have and this is supposed to be a bad thing.
http://www.ingrimayne.com/econ/Banking/Overview10ma.html
| Quote: |
| the fed is a private entity and my question to you is... |
It's a blend. The president and congress certainly get to pick the head of the fed.
| Quote: |
who are the share holders?
since you will not be able to answer,
that is exactly my problem with the situation... |
Aren't publicly owned banks members of the fed? Is the fed a for profit operation? Without the arms length fed we come back to this notion of the elected government having control over the money supply. A fed that is answerable to both government and the publicly held banks has to find a middle ground, no? I still don't see a problem here.
But I'm not talking about the fed. I'm talking about publicly owned banks and their ability to "create" money. I do not find this a bad thing.
| Quote: |
| when was the last time you heard of the head of the fed being fired for getting it wrong? |
When was the last time the head of the fed did something wrong?
Last edited by mindmetoo on Mon Aug 20, 2007 5:37 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
riverboy
Joined: 03 Jun 2003
Location: Incheon
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 5:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I wish I had the ability to take 10 dollars of your money and create 100 dollars of it. And to charge to manoey to hold it for you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 5:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| riverboy wrote: |
| I wish I had the ability to take 10 dollars of your money and create 100 dollars of it. And to charge to manoey to hold it for you. |
Then buy shares in a bank. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| riverboy wrote: |
| I wish I had the ability to take 10 dollars of your money and create 100 dollars of it. And to charge to manoey to hold it for you. |
Then buy shares in a bank. |
Right. Not only are you then participating in the structure but my RBC shares have paid off very nicely. I like institutional investments.
The Fed is a good-enough system. It is also a system that prolly less than 2% of Americans/Canadians actually understand. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2007 9:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| riverboy wrote: |
| I wish I had the ability to take 10 dollars of your money and create 100 dollars of it. And to charge to manoey to hold it for you. |
Then buy shares in a bank. |
Right. Not only are you then participating in the structure but my RBC shares have paid off very nicely. I like institutional investments.
The Fed is a good-enough system. It is also a system that prolly less than 2% of Americans/Canadians actually understand. |
I can never figure out why Canadians dump bricks when Canadian banks enjoy healthy or even record profits. A profitable banking sector is good for the economy. Do they want banks to hemorrhage cash? I don't quite get it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
