Have you guys seen this about the Federal Reserve Bank?

51 posts / 0 new

http://youtu.be/W8tP8suUqrY

Very interesting and I believe everyone will like it. I like the part about creating money out of thin air.....Common sense is another reason I like that guy. I know Poly has been saying the same thing ever since I've been around here....

Kincinich has several other good videos on You-Tube to watch....

Sprinklerfitter's picture
Sprinklerfitter
Joined:
Sep. 1, 2011 5:49 am

Comments

Of course they create money out of thin air. They make money the same way the bowling alley makes points.

Here's an idea to keep the Fed honest-y, honest-ish, well, to deal with the 'debt':

Quote Jack Balkin, a professor at Yale Law School:

Sovereign governments such as the United States can print new money. However, there’s a statutory limit to the amount of paper currency that can be in circulation at any one time. Ironically, there’s no similar limit on the amount of coinage. A little-known statute gives the secretary of the Treasury the authority to issue platinum coins in any denomination. So some commentators have suggested that the Treasury create two $1 trillion coins, deposit them in its account in the Federal Reserve and write checks on the proceeds.

Yes, that's right. It's in the constitution:

Quote U.S. Contitution:

(k) The Secretary may mint and issue platinum bullion coins and proof platinum coins in accordance with such specifications, designs, varieties, quantities, denominations, and inscriptions as the Secretary, in the Secretary’s discretion, may prescribe from time to time.

There, problem solved.

planetxan's picture
planetxan
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

To be clear - that's not in the Constitution.

The Constitution grants the power to Congress (article I - section 8).

Congress makes rules (laws) , including Title 31, Chapter 51, subchapter 12, item (k) - which is what you quoted above. Not disputing, just clarifying.

On the original point: Misuse of this Funny Money can be used in a propagandish fashion to create a false sense of improvement which would, of course, be greatly diminished if not kept secret.

The biggest danger is to the naive investor who has not idea how much the value of the stocks they own has been inflated by false demand created by the infusion of this Funny Money since they have no way of knowing when the Funny Money will be retracted causing the "unknown" bubble to burst.

One common sense way to know when there is funny-money-hanky-panky going on is when National GDP is being measured/quoted at 3-4% per year yet there are daily fluctuations of 1/2% or more.

And since most people that invest in the stock market think they are smarter than everyone else and will know when to get out - they will left holding the bag (nearly empty, torn & tattered, but with a very sexy logo).

Rodger97321's picture
Rodger97321
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Oops, US Code. Well, it's the law, you know what I mean.

planetxan's picture
planetxan
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

The U.S. government has the Constitutional authority to coin money and state its value. If Congress choses not to use that authority, Congress chooses not to use it.

It's preferred to borrow money into existence for a pretty long time now rather than just creating it.

The U.S. code (law written by Congress) ) requires government to borrow a non-existent dollar from a bankster before it can print it.

The bankster credits the government with the non existent dollar through fractional reserve banking,. (The bankster doesn't have it either), Then government can print it.,

Government has the Constitutional authority to create money without borrowing it. The last Pres. to do that was Abe Lincoln.

Congress currently prefers to borrow non-existent money into existence from banksters. Some Congress Critters have always been on the take from banksters.. Most are just plain stupid. when it comes to the monetary system and how it functions..

People expect a Congress Critter to know more than how to shake a hand and kiss a baby at election time. Most don't know much more than that..They depend on lobbyists from corporations and finance to mentor them. It's easier than cracking a book and learning how things actually function..

It should be noted that Congressman Kucinich has Michael Hudson as his economic mentor. The world class economist who saved Iceland from duplicating the meltdown of Greece, Ireland and Latvia. The same economist (who with others) suggested the Treasury stamp out a few trillion dollar coins and hand them over to the Fed to payoff our debt held by the Fed..It really is that simple.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease".

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Poly brings this up frequently, I don't understand it.

What's the difference between issuing a single trillion-dollar coin and 10 billion hundred-dollar coins? Besides the cost of minting and transportation?

All those coins will be part of the money supply.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Nope. A trillion dollar coin sent to the Fed in exchange for U.S. debt stays in the Fed's vault. The Fed doesn't spend money. It creates it out of nothing and loans it to banksters at nearly zero interest rates..When Treasury Bonds have no buyers, the Fed creates the money out of nothing and buys them.

Reducing U.S. debt by trillions would cost a few bucks to stamp out a few coins.

Government doesn't have the same financial rules that a company or household does. People have yet to discern the difference. Forcing government to adhere to the same rules is a major part of the problem..However, it's very profitable for finance.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

The Fed has $1 trillion (actually more) US Treasuries today. It can sell those treasuries on the open market and convert it to cash (likely at a gain.) Unless there are restrictions on selling these, that I am not aware of. The supply of money does not change.

You're advocating that the US mint these coins and tender them to Bernacke to pay off the Treasuries. The supply of money goes up.

The US can mint these coins, in whatever denomination, and pay holders of Treasuries today as they mature. (To make things comparable, let's assume that we would pay Bernacke in the same frequency as we pay everyone else, there are no early redemption charges, etc.) The supply of money goes up.

The US can mint these coins and distribute them to the public. Instead of a stimulus check, you get a voucher to redeem at any bank for 10 hundred-dollar coins (or whatever.) The supply of money goes up.

I don't get the magic of tendering the trillion-dollar coin to Bernacke.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Poly........If our government stamped out 16 one trillion dollar coins and gave them to the Fed to pay off our national debt that would eliminate the interest we're currently paying on that so-called borrowed money.......right?

If so how much money do you think the taxpayers would save in one year alone just on the interest? I have a feeling the interest we're paying is probably in the billions and is one reason someone or a group of people wants to keep this country in debt.

After seeing what is going on in Greece right now I think they would be better off to default than being owned by the bankers for who knows how long. I read an article the other day where the police over there wanted the judges to issue warrents for the arrest of the bankers but they wouldn't do it. I hope the people over there elect a new government very soon and then arrest the bankers/crooked politicians and jail them. I'd rather hit rock bottom and start over with nothing than owe my soul to any banker. I'd say 99% of the people over there feel the same way. I wish them nothing but the best.

Sprinklerfitter's picture
Sprinklerfitter
Joined:
Sep. 1, 2011 5:49 am

if we don't oust the private central banking system our fate will soon be that of greece. after the banks get a country in sufficent debt they begin taking hard assets to pay that debt. the whole financial crisis is a set up to transfer fiat wealth for hard assets in receivership of the banks at a fraction of real value. this is done at both levels of finance , gov and private. follow the history.

http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmith_Bankers.htm

J DAILEY's picture
J DAILEY
Joined:
Feb. 23, 2012 6:43 am

That was one awesome article.....Thanks and BTW I saved it for future use.

Sprinklerfitter's picture
Sprinklerfitter
Joined:
Sep. 1, 2011 5:49 am

use it often, spread it wide

J DAILEY's picture
J DAILEY
Joined:
Feb. 23, 2012 6:43 am

watch this too

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=swkq2E8mswI

J DAILEY's picture
J DAILEY
Joined:
Feb. 23, 2012 6:43 am

I just finished watching that link. Damn thing was almost two hours long. It was very interesting so here's one by one of the guests in that film.......http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ellen-brown/greece-default_b_1287970.html

Sprinklerfitter's picture
Sprinklerfitter
Joined:
Sep. 1, 2011 5:49 am

Uh-oh we are talking about the FED, let's see how long it'll take the moderators here to ban all of us. After all the FED controls both the left-wing and right-wing agendas and has their censors on all radio talk shows to shut down callers who talk anything of the FED, Bilderberg, Trilateral Commission, CFR or anything New World Order.

It's good to see some politicians with some backbone finally talking about it.

The American Dream Film-Full Length

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGk5ioEXlIM

The Money Masters.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936&q=The+money+changers&ei=Zd4QSMjvB47YqAKQtJmzBA

The videos are viral and there's no putting this genie back in the bottle !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Luap Nol's picture
Luap Nol
Joined:
Feb. 24, 2012 9:44 am

in regards to your above link i've heard the derivatives market to be harboring hundreds of trillions in unsecured bets (puts). enough to easily crush the world economy.

J DAILEY's picture
J DAILEY
Joined:
Feb. 23, 2012 6:43 am

The American Dream vid is amusing. I have to disagree with the notion that a gold backed currency will save us. Gold backed currency gives the control to those with the most gold. It is the control of money supply that is paramount, be it hard asset backed or fiat. Other than its obvious industrial applications gold is only worth what WE believe it to be worth.

J DAILEY's picture
J DAILEY
Joined:
Feb. 23, 2012 6:43 am

If you can find it watch.......Plunder..The crime of our time.

I watched it on Free Speech TV. Two hours that explains exactly what Wall Street did to us and the rest of the world.

Thanks again for those links. I've already passed them around.

Sprinklerfitter's picture
Sprinklerfitter
Joined:
Sep. 1, 2011 5:49 am

Sprinklefitter wrote: The Fed has $1 trillion (actually more) US Treasuries today. It can sell those treasuries on the open market and convert it to cash (likely at a gain.) Unless there are restrictions on selling these, that I am not aware of. The supply of money does not change.

You're advocating that the US mint these coins and tender them to Bernacke to pay off the Treasuries. The supply of money goes up.

poly replies: The Fed is the Treasury Bond buyer of last resort. When the Treasury issues a billion dollars in bonds, it creates/spends money equal to the bond.

Trillion dollar coins can be used to retire debt held by the Fed...not debt held by anyone else.. The coins remain in the Fed's vault. The Fed doesn't spend money. It was a suggestion first made by world class economist Michal Hudson and others in his profession.. I'm just repeating it. Hudson's advice saved Iceland's fanny from a complete collapse.

Government Debt:

1. The Treasury borrows non-existent money from a bank. It hands the banker an IOU. A Treasury Bond.

2. The bank credits the Treasury account with the non-existent money through fractional reserve banking.

3. The treasury can then print the non-existent money and bring it into existence. It's indebted to the bank..

Government does, however also have the authority to simply create and spend money into existence without borrowing it . As long as the money supply doesn't exceed the productive capacity of the nation, there is no inflationary problem.. That holds true if we simply spend it into existence or borrow it into existence. We seem to prefer massive debt. So do bankers.

Currently, domestic "inflation" is just a reflection of the global dollar glut..Bernanke's gift to finance that has no domestic use. They use the glut of dollars outside the country. The dollar is inflated internationally. .driving imports including energy prices upwards. All domestic production reliant on energy will reflect higher prices...including food..

We don't have domestic inflation...more money than goods domestically. The money supply at home is shrinking. . We have higher import costs...more money than goods internationally. That gives the appearance of domestic inflation. Higher pices on everything.

The U.S. has tremendous amounts of idle productive capacity...including idle labor. Government could simply spend money into existence to utilize it. Green energies, public transit, infrastructure repair and the like. That however, would expose the lie that governments have to borrow money into existence for domestic use. So we sit around fretting over debt and lack of money to do anything that needs doing and promote austerity to pay off the debt that it wasn't necessary to create in the first place.

All money is created out of thin air. Animated video on our banking/monetary system t's development, how it functions, it's consequences. : Even my 12 year old niece understood it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVkFb26u9g8

.Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Are the Treasuries Bernacke has, marketable? Is there anything that distinguishes them from other Treasuries? They have serial numbers, right? Is there a record of the serial numbers he bought?

Why can't Geithner or Obama issue some sort of executive letter declaring that those particular bonds will never be honored on redemption?

I think this is a more sensible route than the trillion-dollar coin scheme.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

This whole concept of a trillion dollar coin, can this be done under what we interpret "coin" to be, legally?

The coin can't be susceptible to counterfeiting. You don't want to mint coins consisting of one ounce of copper and declare them to be worth $100.00 (today, anyway.) And there isn't $6 trillion worth of any kind of material. We can do this with paper because we have all the fancy coloring and engraving and such which make it harder to counterfeit.

Is a person's DNA able to be counterfeited? Can we legally make a coin out of plastic and put some sort of readable biological substance in it that won't deteriorate? It would have to be of someone dead, where we had custody of the cadaver, maybe the dude buried in Grant's tomb.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

I watched that video when you posted it before only last time I believe you posted the whole movie instead of one part. It was worth the look....In one of my other posts I watched another movie a few days ago in a link that was provided to me in this same post and it was also worth watching even though it was almost two hours long. If you haven't seen it I would suggest you give it a look.

Sprinklerfitter's picture
Sprinklerfitter
Joined:
Sep. 1, 2011 5:49 am

This Kucinich thing is exactly what I have been talking about.

Can we have Dennis for our next President???????? :)

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 6:45 pm

I wore my Dennis the Menace pin until the end. The realistic answer is that we cannot, but how about 2016? What would it take to make it more than a dream? I love your spirit and your posts have added greatly to this board.

Don't stop pushing just because generational change outruns our horizons.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Well, Kucinich is the only one who seems to know how our monetary system functons. He wants to take back the function of money creation from the banksters bank, the Fed, and put it back in the U.S. Treasury where it belongs.

Congress can direct the Treasury to coin money out of anything. Even paper. If people preferred our banknotes be round, to resemble coins, I suppose that could be arranged, but it would be rather inconvenient.

Only the states are limiited in money creation. Their money has to be made of gold or silver.

Private banks, of course,create money with the stroke of a keyboard through fractional reserve banking. They loan out nearly 10 times the money they have on hand....out of thin air.

Kucinich was my own choice during the last election cycle. He was, of course, quietly disappeared from the nation's TV screens in favor of a "safe" candidate. TV cameras followed the safe candidate around like puppies.

The "safe" candidate was named the most successful marketing campaign of the year...ahead of even Apple.. Brand Obama sold really, really well.The campaign for the new and improved product may do even better. We'll see how the ads play out.

I heartily recommend the video posted by J DAILEY. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=swkq2E8mswI

If you take away nothing else from it, take this: Governments that created and spent money into existence created prosperous societies...even if that money was notched sticks (England). . Governments that borrowed money into existence ultimitately created destitution,depressions and very wealthy bankers..Currently, if government wants to add a new dollar to the money supply...it has to borrow it before it can print it..If governments don't add to the money supply, it shrinks as loans are paid back .Over time, money would simply disappear.

We ought to give up this debt nonsense and go back to what Lincoln did. Simply create money and spend it into existence on those things that need doing. Sovereign nations don't have to borrow their own currency into existence from private corporations...

Having the globe's entire money supply being based on debt to private banks is fooish.. The entire money supply is based on a debt public or private. Add the interest owed on it, and you'll quickly see it can never, ever be paid back. The principle is injected into the money supply with every new loan...the interest isn't. There is a shortfall. The money supply can never, ever be large enough to pay back the loans.The bankster solution is more and more loans to make up for the shortfalls with no end ever in sight.

Banksters have claims on the entire economic output of the globe. In return for that they have produced what? Nothing.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Karolina wants to know if Kucinich can be our next President. Darn that dream! Of course he can't, he knows too much. Easier to ridicule him for being short and looking something like PeeWee Herman, who also knows too much. I love Dennis and wore his buttons as long as I could. I still break them out to piss off GOPimps. When was the last time the most qualified candidat could be nominated? The better they are, the more ridicule they get from the corporate media. Being here for the long haul is the best way to deal with the nonsense.

Obama did a great job of branding and sales, but he deserves some credit for bringing some competence to the job. We just need a new job description.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Printing money to retire old debt just for sake of retiring old debt is a very dangerous thing. Part of the reason why Feds are not so eager to engage in Quantitative Easing aka print money is that there is a very high probability of creating inflation. And if not checked, could lead to hyper inflation followed by chaotic economic collapse.

"Printing money" should never be taken so lightly. It's a very dangerous tool!

As for some earlier post where it asked, why not have the Treasury or Pres. Obama to come out and say that US will not honor the bonds held by the Feds. That is a financial default. Can't mince or dice your way out of the definition. There are severe consequences to sovereign default. If you can avoid it, it should be avoided and not to be used so lightly.

Minting of $1T coin has been bantered about for quite some time. I'm very wary of such idea. What is the difference between "printing money" and minting $1T to be deposited in the Feds?

smilingcat
Joined:
Sep. 23, 2010 8:14 am

pay our debts to our servicers, but to the banks...nothing.they have stole enough. as a matter of fact we should reposes the hard assets they have claimed through their deceptive finance schemes. don't buy into the line we can't function without them. it's the other way around.

J DAILEY's picture
J DAILEY
Joined:
Feb. 23, 2012 6:43 am
Quote smilingcat:

As for some earlier post where it asked, why not have the Treasury or Pres. Obama to come out and say that US will not honor the bonds held by the Feds. That is a financial default. Can't mince or dice your way out of the definition.

Not really.

When the Treasury sells bonds to pay for government spending, it is taking money that is already in existence and later paying back that money, plus some interest.

With Quantitative Easing, Bernacke created new money that never existed and paid more than the market rate, by definition, for US bonds.

It seems to me that when Bernacke decides that it is time to slow the growth of the money supply, he should be required to surrender his bonds to the Treasury. I don't know what the procedure is, if there in fact is a written procedure, for unwinding Quantitative Easing.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Chilidog wrote: When the Treasury sells bonds to pay for government spending, it is taking money that is already in existence and later paying back that money, plus some interest

poly replies: Sometimes yes. Sometimes no. When we ship dollars to China to buy their trinkets, they ship the dollars back and buy Treasury Bonds. Not much else they can do with them. We won't let them buy our oil refineries, etc, though they've tried..

When the Fed buys Treasury Bonds, it simply credits the Treasury with the money...and government spends it. Banks buyTreasury Bonds with fractional reserve banking. They simply credit the Treasury with non-existent money and receive a Treasury Bond in return. If government wants to add additional money to the money supply when it shrinks, government has to first borrow it before it can print it.

We're forgotten our roots:

."Benjamin Franklin is asked by officials of the Bank of England to explain the prosperity of the colonies in America. He replies,

"That is simple. In the Colonies we issue our own money. It is called Colonial Scrip. We issue it in proper proportion to the demands of trade and industry to make the products pass easily from the producers to the consumers. In this manner creating for ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power, and we have no interest to pay no one."

As a result of Franklin's statement, the British Parliament hurriedly passed the Currency Act of 1764. This prohibited colonial officials from issuing their own money and ordered them to pay all future taxes in gold or silver coins. Referring to after this act was passed, Franklin would state the following in his autobiography,

"In one year, the conditions were so reversed that the era of prosperity ended, and a depression set in, to such an extent that the streets of the colonies were filled with the unemployed...The colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England took away from the colonies their money which created unemployment and dissatisfaction.

The viability of the colonists to get power to issue their own money permanently out of the hands of King George III and the international bankers was the prime reason for the revolutionary war." http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmith_Bankers.htm

Government used to simply create and spend money into existence when the money supply required it. The nation prospered. Now it borrows it into existence....primarily from financial corporations.The sovereign right of a nation state to issue its own money has been privatized. It has to borrow it from banksters before it can issue it.

As debt is repaid, the money supply disappears into bank vaults...or goes round and round trading financial paper. It disappears from the Main Street economy. It isn't available any longer for the production and exchange of goods. .and more money has to be borrowed to bring the money supply up to a level high enough to provide for commerce. and the exchange of goods. In Benjamin Franklin's day, government didn't have to borrow the money into existence. It simply spent it into existence when the economy required it.....and didn't pay banksters interest for the privilege of issuing its own money.

At some point, please get how our monetary system works. I'm tired of repeating myself to explain away the falsehoods. Watch a few videos on the topic posted by myself and others.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

In other words history has proven that government control of a country's money was successful and "private" control of a country's money was unsuccessful. The current state of the world's economy is living proof that privatization of the economy doesn't work no matter how hard the libertarians of the world try to convince you otherwise. The "free market" control of money and resources is failing badly. Proof that the unregulated free market and capitalism feeds itself first and leaves just enough crumbs to fuel labor.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am

Precisely. Two centuries of borrowing money into existence to continually replace a shrinking money supply as the debt is paid back has reached a brick wall. The principle of the loan is injected into the money supply...not the interest. There is a cumulative shortfall. So much debt is now owed globally, it can't be repaid...

The fatal flaw in our monetary system has reared its ugly head. It's meltdown time.

Banksters own claims on the entire economic output of the globe. Every last dime and apple. As economies contract through austerity programs, their claims will exceed the globe's economic output. Payback is in someone's wild dream world.

Central banks are keeping banksters solvent with handouts. Banksters are shoving much of it into their own pockets as bonuses The economist Hudson refers to it as one last, great heist before the whole house of cards collapses.

We could avoid a lot of pain by just throwing the whole system into the trash bin and re-booting with governments once again simply spending money into existence as required equal to the needs of industry and consumers to maintain the circular flow of goods and commerce as we did in the most prosperous time in American history...in the time of Ben Franklin.

Re-read the quotes from Franklin's autobiography above. I'm indebted to J DAILEY for providing the link to them. I've seen them in video's, but not as stand-alone copy that could be cut and pasted.

. Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote polycarp2: Banksters own claims on the entire economic output of the globe. Every last dime and apple. As economies contract through austerity programs, their claims will exceed the globe's economic output. Payback is in someone's wild dream world.

Central banks are keeping banksters solvent with handouts. Banksters are shoving much of it into their own pockets as bonuses The economist Hudson refers to it as one last, great heist before the whole house of cards collapses.

We could avoid a lot of pain by just throwing the whole system into the trash bin and re-booting with governments once again simply spending money into existence as required equal to the needs of industry and consumers to maintain the circular flow of goods and commerce as we did in the most prosperous time in American history ... in the time of Ben Franklin.

I have been noticing that I am accumulating gray hair exponentially since it became clear to me that rather than letting go of the control of the governments they have been manipulating into servicing them, the oligarchs of the bankster empire would rather see these countries destroyed. Also the countries that refuse to give them free control of their economies.

And then Obama put the US fleet into the Middle East and the Pacific. These days one nuclear warhead is more than 1000 times more powerful than the ones dropped on Japan to "bring them to surrender"— even though they had already announced surrender.

Its kind of a downer facing your Maker because someone else has their finger on the red button, huh?

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 6:45 pm
Quote polycarp2:

Chilidog wrote: When the Treasury sells bonds to pay for government spending, it is taking money that is already in existence and later paying back that money, plus some interest

poly replies: Sometimes yes. Sometimes no. When we ship dollars to China to buy their trinkets, they ship the dollars back and buy Treasury Bonds. Not much else they can do with them. We won't let them buy our oil refineries, etc, though they've tried..

When the Fed buys Treasury Bonds, it simply credits the Treasury with the money...and government spends it. Banks buyTreasury Bonds with fractional reserve banking. They simply credit the Treasury with non-existent money and receive a Treasury Bond in return. If government wants to add additional money to the money supply when it shrinks, government has to first borrow it before it can print it.

I think I get how our monetary system works. And I agree with most of your ideas to change it. And I appreciate your repeating yourself in these matters. It takes time to sink in. Ask Coca-Cola. In fact, I would urge you to repeat what you understand to be the monetary policies of the Third Reich and their separate currencies for internal and external trading, because that has not yet sunk into my bean. You should create a new thread just on that topic.

That being said, nothing in your post rebukes anything in mine.

What do you mean when you said "sometimes no"?

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Chilidog wrote: When the Treasury sells bonds to pay for government spending, it is taking money that is already in existence and later paying back that money, plus some interest

Poly replied: Sometimes yes. Sometimes no

When the Fed buys Treasury Bonds, it simply credits the Treasury with the money...and government spends it. [The Fed doesn't use existing money to buy the bonds]

Banks buyTreasury Bonds with fractional reserve banking. They simply credit the Treasury with non-existent money and receive a Treasury Bond in return

If you get right down to it, our monetary system is nothing more than a Ponzi scheme. Continual borrowing has to be made to maintain a money supply. When the scheme runs out of borrowers capable of repayment, the whole thing collapses.

As Benjamin Franklin pointed out, in his autobiography, a primary cause of the Revolution was to avoid the Ponzi scheme of borrowing money into existence and paying banksters interest for the privilege. The colonies simply created money and spent it into existence...sufficient for industry and buyers to exchange goods/services at full capacity. The colonies were prosperous.

When King George put banksters in charge, taking away their ability to issue currency and spend it into existence in quantities sufficient to maintain the economy, they went into a depression

England drove the final nail in the coffin by flooding the colonies with a shipload of counterfeit colonial currency..

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease".. ...

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Economics and history in the same class. Do we get extra credit units? Why do "they" get to call themselves conservatives when they know nothing of our history or religious heritage?

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote chilidog:

With Quantitative Easing, Bernacke created new money that never existed and paid more than the market rate, by definition, for US bonds.

Does anyone know what the procedure is for unwinding Quantitative Easing?

The bond traders must know whether or not Bernacke will get paid back.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

J. Dailey has provided two outstanding links, one that everyone should read and the other watch the video and save both to your computer if you haven't done so already. I liked them both and thanks once again JD.

Sprinklerfitter's picture
Sprinklerfitter
Joined:
Sep. 1, 2011 5:49 am

Chilidog asks:Does anyone know what the procedure is for unwinding Quantitative Easing?

polyreplies: Sure. The dollars spent abroad ultimately come back to the U.S. as Treasury Bond purchases by foreign Central Banks...increasing U.S. debt that YOU get to service.It's the only use foreign Central Banks have for the glut of the dollars spent abroad.. De-funding education, social safety nets, infrastructure repair,etc. will help service the new debt.. It's our own austerity program in the works...to enrich banksters.

The money ultimately disappears from global circulation by the purchase of U.S. debt by foreign Central Banks. Every dime of debt they buy is a dime owed....plus interest. The Treasury, of course, remains insolvent from such an arrangement with debt piled upon debt, and can't spend the money. It can just attempt to service the new debt. of trillions

.If we don't sell foreign Central Banks U.S. debt for their useless glut of dollars, they'll stop accepting dollars.That's what the real fuss was all about regarding raising the debt ceiling.We'll have to raise it again.

The dollars from Quantitative Easing aren't being spent domestically. The domestic money supply is shrinking. If the dollars were being spent at home, the domestic money supply would show a dramatic increase of many trillions instead of shrinking.

That's what happens when you hand money over to banksters rather than just spending money into existence domestically. Simply spending money into existence domestically for usefull productivity is just another form and term for Quantitative Easing. That, form, of course, is off the table. It would give banksters strokes..

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease".

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Last week I had jury service and one of our fellow jurors had been an international banker working overseas for the previous twenty years. I attempted to discuss these issues with him, but encountered some problems. He didn't seem to know what fractional reserve banking was/is. Weird huh? He was under the impression that a bank could only lend what it held in assets or something like that. He seemed genuinely incredulous.

I do understand that in certain circumstances there can and should be double standards, triple standards, etc. The more responsible should have fewer restrictions or greater liberties.

It may all be fiat, but isn't a democratized monetary system what we're dealing with, working for and aspiring to? All of economics is derived from an exchanged consensus, no?

For the first time in history, we can talk about global economic desparity, equality, equity...wharever, but with exponentially growing breath and depth...

If we all start to question the system like some crazy iconoclast like poly, it'll be a global run on more than the banks. That wouldn't be pretty. The truth may set you free on a road to hell.

MEJ's picture
MEJ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote polycarp2:

Chilidog asks:Does anyone know what the procedure is for unwinding Quantitative Easing?

polyreplies: Sure. The dollars spent abroad ultimately come back to the U.S. as Treasury Bond purchases by foreign Central Banks

The money ultimately disappears from global circulation by the purchase of U.S. debt by foreign Central Banks.

.If we don't sell foreign Central Banks U.S. debt for their useless glut of dollars, they'll stop accepting dollars

The dollars from Quantitative Easing aren't being spent domestically. The domestic money supply is shrinking. If the dollars were being spent at home, the domestic money supply would show a dramatic increase of many trillions instead of shrinking.

I don't think you understand my question: Bernacke has a vault. The only thing in that vault is a Treasury Bond. Can he do everything with that bond that I can do if it were in my vault?

What I think SHOULD happen is that at some point in time he should destroy that bond, just tear it up or burn it. Or tender it back to the Treasury Department.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote MEJ: It may all be fiat, but isn't a democratized monetary system what we're dealing with, working for and aspiring to? All of economics is derived from an exchanged consensus, no?

For the first time in history, we can talk about global economic desparity, equality, equity...wharever, but with exponentially growing breath and depth...

If we all start to question the system like some crazy iconoclast like poly, it'll be a global run on more than the banks. That wouldn't be pretty. The truth may set you free on a road to hell.

The system failed. There have been systems that have worked. They have, historically, been destroyed from within by banksters who wanted to get rich — by swindling the people who were contributing to society. That is what slowly happened here in the USA over the 6 decades since WW2.

Now is the time to go back to a system that supports the people who are actually trying to contribute to society & to civilization, and jail the swindlers.

And, MEJ, name-calling Poly? That's just rude.

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 6:45 pm

Chilidog wrote:

I don't think you understand my question: Bernacke has a vault. The only thing in that vault is a Treasury Bond. Can he do everything with that bond that I can do if it were in my vault?

What I think SHOULD happen is that at some point in time he should destroy that bond, just tear it up or burn it. Or tender it back to the Treasury Department.

poly replies: Legally, he can't do that. All U.S. debt has to be backed by an IOU. A Treasury Bond. When there is a market for it, Bernanke peddles them. to another Central Bank in exchange for the glut of dollars floating around the world. Then the debt is owed to someone else. and we can't retire it as explained below.

The Treasury could retire debt held by the Fed simply by stamping out a few trillion dollar coins. They would replace the IOU (Treasury Bond) and be held in the Fed's vault....forever. The Fed doesn't spend money.

Government has the Constitutional authority to do that...and doesn't. It would offend the Fed's constituency. Banksters.

You asked how the current Quantitative Easing would unwind. I explained it. You'll be saddled with trillions more in debt with nothing to show for it. Not even a repaired pot hole in the street.

MEJ wrote: If we all start to question the system like some crazy iconoclast like poly, it'll be a global run on more than the banks. That wouldn't be pretty. The truth may set you free on a road to hell.

poly replies: Well, the truth might save the peoples of one nation after another from becoming economic serfs...shipping the entire wealth of their economic production to banksters. .

Let the banksters fail...and re-boot with a public banking system on the model of the State Bank of N. Dakota. Governments can guarantee the previous accounts through the new banking system...and simply credit their accounts with the money they had in the failed banks. Of course, we'd have to give up the notion that governments would have to borrow the money to do that. They don't. Accounts can be re-created with the stroke on a keyboard in the new government banks.

The century-old state-owned State Bank of N. Dakota provides low interest loans and feeds the state treasury rather than sucking it dry..N. Dakota has its highest budget surplus in history.. The rest of the states are plunging into insolvency Government banks work.

U.S. Postal Savings banking worked. We should have kept it..Chances are, if you're not old enough, you've never heard of it. Banksters loathed it and got rid of it.

Sovereign nations don't have to borrow money into existence. They can simply create it and spend it into existence as this nation once did in Ben Franklin's day. As Franklin noted in his autobiography, when England took that power away from the colonies and gave it to banksters...Americans responded with a Revolution. According to Benjamin Franklin, that was the prime cause.

All in vain. Banksters overturned our Revolution. They're in control of the monetary system again. We ought to take it back.

You want to maintain a banking and monetary system that is impoverishing the globe. I don't. Their claims on the world's wealth are so high, it can never, ever be paid. Impoverishing ourselves in a failed attempt to pay them is stupid.

It's meltdown time with or without the truth, about how the monetary/banking systems function, or haven't you noticed?.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"..

.

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

/federal-reserve-audit-highlights-possible-conflicts-of-interest/

The story on the cnbc, and fox is the gov made money, because they got paid back plus 10 billion [?] , but think if you loaned 16,000,000,000,000 and in 2 years returned 10 billion. The interest is .0000065% Now could you make money with that interest rate? Nobody calls the 16trillion scam a fraud. Somw when to GE, the makers of the jet engines in the military industrial complex. GE financial got some, GMAC got some, foreign banks and corporations got some. The board members on the fed were also the board mebers on the companys that got loans for .0000065%. US motto 'In Fraud We Trust',

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote polycarp2:

Chilidog wrote:

I don't think you understand my question: Bernacke has a vault. The only thing in that vault is a Treasury Bond. Can he do everything with that bond that I can do if it were in my vault?

What I think SHOULD happen is that at some point in time he should destroy that bond, just tear it up or burn it. Or tender it back to the Treasury Department.

poly replies: Legally, he can't do that. All U.S. debt has to be backed by an IOU. A Treasury Bond. When there is a market for it, Bernanke peddles them...

I did not know this. If this is true, this is very, very bad.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Oh yeah, it is very, very bad. Continuing to believe in it is much worse. Poly has described the fix.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

I posted earlier but it was deleted. The point was the Fed was audited at the behest of Bernie Sanders ans Ron Paul. The report is quite disturbing. And full of fraud and conflict of interest, but that is American business practice, lie, cheat, steal, defraud, and make sure you got your parachute before bankrupcy proceedings proceed under the auspices of the appointed bankruptcy judge.., Fuck it I am out of the whole sham.

F

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote DRC:

Oh yeah, it is very, very bad. Continuing to believe in it is much worse. Poly has described the fix.

poly replies: Just historical observations....and Just repeating what some economists have been stating and observing. I repeat the economists who don't prostitute themselves to banksters, finance and transnationals. There aren't a whole lot of them, but their quality makes up for the quantity.

Michael Hudson saved Iceland's. fanny. If Iceland holds fast, it will be fine. It needn't go the way of Greece.

Hudson is, of course, a pariah in his own country. He refuses to be a Bernanke parrot or repeat the nonsense of Obama's economic team.. They are simply banksters given even greater power with positions in the highest levels of government.

People shouldn't credit me with the ideas I post here on banking, finance or economics.. They aren't mine.

I may be old, but am certainly not old enough to have helped Benjamin Franklin and the American Colonies form their economic/monetary/banking policies. The policies worked. I wish I could take the credit. I could definately use the money from a Nobel Prize.

When Ricardo noted in his trade theories that if a nation outsourced its labor costs it would impoverish itself, he came to that without my help. England proved the theory. It preceeded the world into the Great Depression by doing that.

I had nothing to do with writing Say's Law. Mr. Say did it on his own. LOL.

Most people find economics boring. It has fascinated me for many decades. It ties in with my interests in history. All nations and societies rise and fall. Their economies and how they function determine their success or failure. Once I saw that connection, economics became a "must study" for me. Can't make sense of history without it.

The number of varied applications of common, core economic principles throughout human history are rather astounding.The demise or rise of economic structures and societies have commonalities to them. Every application I've discovered so far, carries within it its own death warrant. Societies either respond sensibly to that, or they don't. For humanity, however, it's always ultimately been a good thing. We no longer live in caves with a life expectancy of 20-25 years.

Ultimately, the core applications are always replaced with better. applications. It's an on-going process that coincides with human development, psychologically, socially, and technologically. Changing environments and natural resources play a definate role..

Contrary to Margaret Thatcher, this isn't the only alternative and the end of economic history.She may as well have said the same thing several thousand years ago. It wasn't true then either. It won't be true until human beings cease walking on this planet

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Are we clear yet that the Fed isn't the only one making something out of nothing? Time for a Jubilee!

jdadam's picture
jdadam
Joined:
Jun. 3, 2011 11:53 am

Refer again to David Graeber's DEBT to see how true this is.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote jdadam:

Are we clear yet that the Fed isn't the only one making something out of nothing?

I'm not clear yet. Who else is making something out of nothing?

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Currently Chatting

The Death of the Middle Class was by Design...

Even in the face of the so-called Recovery, poverty and inequality are getting worse in our country, and more wealth and power is flowing straight to the top. According to Paul Buchheit over at Alternet, this is the end result of winner-take-all capitalism, and this destruction of the working class has all been by design.

Powered by Drupal, an open source content management system