Thousands Protest in Iceland following Soaring Currency Inflation

SleepWalkerX

Platinum Member
Jun 29, 2004
2,649
0
0
Iceland protest ends in clashes

Protesters in Iceland's capital Reykjavik have clashed with police during a demonstration over the handling of the financial crisis.

Several hundred protesters gathered outside the city's main police station to demand the release of a man jailed in a previous demonstration.

Five people were injured when police used pepper spray to disperse the group after some tried to storm the building.

Iceland faces a sharply contracting economy over the financial collapse.

The group outside the police station broke away from a much larger group of several thousand people who had gathered outside parliament to demand the government's resignation.

Some in the group tried to storm the police building.

The man they wanted to release was later freed, after a fine he owed over a previous demonstration was paid.

There has been a series of protests in Reykjavik calling for the government to resign over its handling of the economy.

The banking system collapsed in October and the currency, the krona, has lost half its value in the past year.

Iceland's government was forced to take over three of its biggest banks last month when they could not keep up with billions of dollars of debt taken on to finance overseas expansion.

The government has taken out $4.6bn (£3.1bn) in loans from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and four of its Nordic neighbours to stay afloat.

BBC Video

The sad thing about all of this is that it appears that Icelanders are calling for immediate elections to punish the bankers and previous government. I have yet to come across an article that brought up any real monetary changes besides eating from the pig trough of the IMF.

Remember this event. Once hyperinflation occurs, please restructure our monetary policy and end debt-based money instead of trying to continue to prop up the dollar.

edit:

I just found a blogger who lost his/her job in Iceland and is spending his/her time translating Iceland's news in English. Maybe if you appreciate this person's work you can throw a few bones his/her way. ;)

http://newsfrettir.com/
 

Kuragami

Member
Jun 20, 2008
92
0
0
I don't see Obama in the US or Harper here in Canada doing any such thing as dumping debt based monetary policy. However I do see them restructuring the monetary policy into another currency. It would take hyperinflation and the public begging for any solution to do it and if it came to that it would be what they would do.

Some people here think that will never happen due to the current strong dollar. In my opinion they have nothing to base this assumption on besides the US willing to go further into debt.

What's the tune now 8.5 trillion pledged with about 3.5 trillion used? Won't be the last.
 

SleepWalkerX

Platinum Member
Jun 29, 2004
2,649
0
0
Originally posted by: Kuragami
I don't see Obama in the US or Harper here in Canada doing any such thing as dumping debt based monetary policy.

Obama and Harper are stooges. We, the people, are the conduits of change in this country. The only reason we haven't change our policy now is because we rely too much on these assholes.

Originally posted by: Kuragami
What's the tune now 8.5 trillion pledged with about 3.5 trillion used? Won't be the last.

Agreed. Numbers are starting to become meaningless in terms of the dollar.
 

Dufusyte

Senior member
Jul 7, 2000
659
0
0
The dates on that news article (as well as the Comments posted on the article webpage) indicate a date of April 2008. I imagine the Icelanders have become even more disgruntled since then.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX
Originally posted by: Kuragami
I don't see Obama in the US or Harper here in Canada doing any such thing as dumping debt based monetary policy.

Obama and Harper are stooges. We, the people, are the conduits of change in this country. The only reason we haven't change our policy now is because we rely too much on these assholes.

Originally posted by: Kuragami
What's the tune now 8.5 trillion pledged with about 3.5 trillion used? Won't be the last.

Agreed. Numbers are starting to become meaningless in terms of the dollar.
If they are stooges, so are their electora. The only conduits of change in this country are the ones watching dancing with the stars instead of so you think you can dance. I would bet your life on the fact that if you chose 10 random adults off the street and asked what a fiat monetary system is, only one or two would know. Granted, that doesn't mean they're stupid or even generally ignorant, but exemplifies the complexity of this issue. It's one thing arguing whether warrantless wiretapping should be legal or not, but something quite different to argue whether, and to what extent, the US should have a debt based monetary policy. Despite a great deal of time reading about all this, I'm still quite on the fence with it, and on most of the P&N topics I'm rather opinionated!
 

Kuragami

Member
Jun 20, 2008
92
0
0
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I wonder what they would have done had the alternative happened.

You mean if they had control over their own currency and the government not allowed the banks to push the public, industry and other sectors to expand too far and go into debt?

It would be nice quiet place to visit. That's what.
 

Kuragami

Member
Jun 20, 2008
92
0
0
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX
Originally posted by: Kuragami
I don't see Obama in the US or Harper here in Canada doing any such thing as dumping debt based monetary policy.

Obama and Harper are stooges. We, the people, are the conduits of change in this country. The only reason we haven't change our policy now is because we rely too much on these assholes.

Originally posted by: Kuragami
What's the tune now 8.5 trillion pledged with about 3.5 trillion used? Won't be the last.

Agreed. Numbers are starting to become meaningless in terms of the dollar.
If they are stooges, so are their electora. The only conduits of change in this country are the ones watching dancing with the stars instead of so you think you can dance. I would bet your life on the fact that if you chose 10 random adults off the street and asked what a fiat monetary system is, only one or two would know. Granted, that doesn't mean they're stupid or even generally ignorant, but exemplifies the complexity of this issue. It's one thing arguing whether warrantless wiretapping should be legal or not, but something quite different to argue whether, and to what extent, the US should have a debt based monetary policy. Despite a great deal of time reading about all this, I'm still quite on the fence with it, and on most of the P&N topics I'm rather opinionated!

I'll make it easy for you to decide.

Option 1: Government prints its own money and by law not be allowed to expand the money supply beyond what is needed for trade and increased only by as much as the population increases thereby ensuring little to no inflation. Under this method when you borrow from yourself any interest payment you make goes back to the people.

Option 2: Government goes to a privately owned bank and asks for money. The government prints a piece of paper called a bond and asks that the private bank give it money. In exchange the bank is now being paid interest. Fast forward a few decades and you still have not paid off your debt and now owe perhaps ten times what you originally borrowed from the bank. Plus lets not forget industry and the private sector who do the exact same thing at the urging of banks.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: Kuragami
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I wonder what they would have done had the alternative happened.

You mean if they had control over their own currency and the government not allowed the banks to push the public, industry and other sectors to expand too far and go into debt?

It would be nice quiet place to visit. That's what.

Please. There is no "control over their own currency" possible. One way or another the market dictates what a currency should be worth, how much of it is outstanding, and what their viewpoint is. Whether or not it is pegged to a shiny rock doesn't matter jack shit.

Public and private industry can dig themselves into as much debt under a gold back system as it can under fiat. There've been many cases throughout history to show that is true, including many times there've been runs on the gold systems in redemption of debt owed to foreign creditors (like what happened here until JP Morgan saved the govt's ass through the issuance of more debt). Throughout the gold system we were known as the world's deadbeat debtors, it was just the fact that the debt wasn't concentrated as much in the Federal system as the state system. Combined, the Fed and State debt was even larger than today.

Let's not even get into private debt, such as was seen from the railroads or the hijinx that was perpetrated.

There's also ample evidence to show that gold systems suffered a longer and deeper GD than non-gold systems.

Gold idolators love to say that a gold system is a panacea for debt or economic volatility, but that's nothing more than a fucking joke. Gold is far less stable than fiat when it comes down to managing an even more unstable variable in the economy, human behavior.
 

Kuragami

Member
Jun 20, 2008
92
0
0
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: Kuragami
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I wonder what they would have done had the alternative happened.

You mean if they had control over their own currency and the government not allowed the banks to push the public, industry and other sectors to expand too far and go into debt?

It would be nice quiet place to visit. That's what.

Please. There is no "control over their own currency" possible. One way or another the market dictates what a currency should be worth, how much of it is outstanding, and what their viewpoint is. Whether or not it is pegged to a shiny rock doesn't matter jack shit.

Public and private industry can dig themselves into as much debt under a gold back system as it can under fiat. There've been many cases throughout history to show that is true, including many times there've been runs on the gold systems in redemption of debt owed to foreign creditors (like what happened here until JP Morgan saved the govt's ass through the issuance of more debt). Throughout the gold system we were known as the world's deadbeat debtors, it was just the fact that the debt wasn't concentrated as much in the Federal system as the state system. Combined, the Fed and State debt was even larger than today.

Let's not even get into private debt, such as was seen from the railroads or the hijinx that was perpetrated.

There's also ample evidence to show that gold systems suffered a longer and deeper GD than non-gold systems.

Gold idolators love to say that a gold system is a panacea for debt or economic volatility, but that's nothing more than a fucking joke. Gold is far less stable than fiat when it comes down to managing an even more unstable variable in the economy, human behavior.

Actually I 100% agree with you on gold except for one thing. JP Morgan didn't save the government's ass. It was the third attempt to scam the country and they succeeded, but that's a whole other discussion. Also while it's on subject you actually didn't even form an argument against what I said. Where did I mention gold? Your whole argument is about gold.

The reason I agree with you on gold is because gold has been easily manipulated since its inception. Whoever controls gold dictates everything it is associated to. Since central banks and other similar organizations control most of the world's gold it is not in the best interest of any country to peg their currency to it.

After years of reading I have come to the conclusion that the best system is a fiat based system of money because nobody controls it except those that you allowed. The US allows private banks to control theirs and that is where it fails.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Originally posted by: Kuragami
I'll make it easy for you to decide.

Option 1: Government prints its own money and by law not be allowed to expand the money supply beyond what is needed for trade and increased only by as much as the population increases thereby ensuring little to no inflation. Under this method when you borrow from yourself any interest payment you make goes back to the people.

Option 2: Government goes to a privately owned bank and asks for money. The government prints a piece of paper called a bond and asks that the private bank give it money. In exchange the bank is now being paid interest. Fast forward a few decades and you still have not paid off your debt and now owe perhaps ten times what you originally borrowed from the bank. Plus lets not forget industry and the private sector who do the exact same thing at the urging of banks.
I really don't think it is that easy. What the government does now is a game and a ruse in certain ways, but the end result is that it has, even by a critical standard, tricked the world into rewarding the US and other Western nations with a great deal of wealth. There is credence to the idea that at some point the jig will be up, but thus far the fiat system has made the US tremendously wealthy and powerful.
 

Kuragami

Member
Jun 20, 2008
92
0
0
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: Kuragami
I'll make it easy for you to decide.

Option 1: Government prints its own money and by law not be allowed to expand the money supply beyond what is needed for trade and increased only by as much as the population increases thereby ensuring little to no inflation. Under this method when you borrow from yourself any interest payment you make goes back to the people.

Option 2: Government goes to a privately owned bank and asks for money. The government prints a piece of paper called a bond and asks that the private bank give it money. In exchange the bank is now being paid interest. Fast forward a few decades and you still have not paid off your debt and now owe perhaps ten times what you originally borrowed from the bank. Plus lets not forget industry and the private sector who do the exact same thing at the urging of banks.
I really don't think it is that easy. What the government does now is a game and a ruse in certain ways, but the end result is that it has, even by a critical standard, tricked the world into rewarding the US and other Western nations with a great deal of wealth. There is credence to the idea that at some point the jig will be up, but thus far the fiat system has made the US tremendously wealthy and powerful.

Well I guess that depends on what you consider the US is. You would be correct if you said corporations. What about people?

The US has arguably the world's largest gap between the rich and the poor of industrialized nations.

Edit: correction added "industrialized nations" - I was not suggesting we compare nomads in Sahara to the US.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Originally posted by: Kuragami
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: Kuragami
I'll make it easy for you to decide.

Option 1: Government prints its own money and by law not be allowed to expand the money supply beyond what is needed for trade and increased only by as much as the population increases thereby ensuring little to no inflation. Under this method when you borrow from yourself any interest payment you make goes back to the people.

Option 2: Government goes to a privately owned bank and asks for money. The government prints a piece of paper called a bond and asks that the private bank give it money. In exchange the bank is now being paid interest. Fast forward a few decades and you still have not paid off your debt and now owe perhaps ten times what you originally borrowed from the bank. Plus lets not forget industry and the private sector who do the exact same thing at the urging of banks.
I really don't think it is that easy. What the government does now is a game and a ruse in certain ways, but the end result is that it has, even by a critical standard, tricked the world into rewarding the US and other Western nations with a great deal of wealth. There is credence to the idea that at some point the jig will be up, but thus far the fiat system has made the US tremendously wealthy and powerful.

Well I guess that depends on what you consider the US is. You would be correct if you said corporations. What about people?

The US has arguably the world's largest gap between the rich and the poor.

I get it. You're working toward a career in comedy?
 

Kuragami

Member
Jun 20, 2008
92
0
0
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: Kuragami
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: Kuragami
I'll make it easy for you to decide.

Option 1: Government prints its own money and by law not be allowed to expand the money supply beyond what is needed for trade and increased only by as much as the population increases thereby ensuring little to no inflation. Under this method when you borrow from yourself any interest payment you make goes back to the people.

Option 2: Government goes to a privately owned bank and asks for money. The government prints a piece of paper called a bond and asks that the private bank give it money. In exchange the bank is now being paid interest. Fast forward a few decades and you still have not paid off your debt and now owe perhaps ten times what you originally borrowed from the bank. Plus lets not forget industry and the private sector who do the exact same thing at the urging of banks.
I really don't think it is that easy. What the government does now is a game and a ruse in certain ways, but the end result is that it has, even by a critical standard, tricked the world into rewarding the US and other Western nations with a great deal of wealth. There is credence to the idea that at some point the jig will be up, but thus far the fiat system has made the US tremendously wealthy and powerful.

Well I guess that depends on what you consider the US is. You would be correct if you said corporations. What about people?

The US has arguably the world's largest gap between the rich and the poor.

I get it. You're working toward a career in comedy?

I don't find this funny at all. If you want to contribute something other than witless one liners you are welcome to do so.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: Kuragami
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: Kuragami
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I wonder what they would have done had the alternative happened.

You mean if they had control over their own currency and the government not allowed the banks to push the public, industry and other sectors to expand too far and go into debt?

It would be nice quiet place to visit. That's what.

Please. There is no "control over their own currency" possible. One way or another the market dictates what a currency should be worth, how much of it is outstanding, and what their viewpoint is. Whether or not it is pegged to a shiny rock doesn't matter jack shit.

Public and private industry can dig themselves into as much debt under a gold back system as it can under fiat. There've been many cases throughout history to show that is true, including many times there've been runs on the gold systems in redemption of debt owed to foreign creditors (like what happened here until JP Morgan saved the govt's ass through the issuance of more debt). Throughout the gold system we were known as the world's deadbeat debtors, it was just the fact that the debt wasn't concentrated as much in the Federal system as the state system. Combined, the Fed and State debt was even larger than today.

Let's not even get into private debt, such as was seen from the railroads or the hijinx that was perpetrated.

There's also ample evidence to show that gold systems suffered a longer and deeper GD than non-gold systems.

Gold idolators love to say that a gold system is a panacea for debt or economic volatility, but that's nothing more than a fucking joke. Gold is far less stable than fiat when it comes down to managing an even more unstable variable in the economy, human behavior.

Actually I 100% agree with you on gold except for one thing. JP Morgan didn't save the government's ass. It was the third attempt to scam the country and they succeeded, but that's a whole other discussion. Also while it's on subject you actually didn't even form an argument against what I said. Where did I mention gold? Your whole argument is about gold.

The reason I agree with you on gold is because gold has been easily manipulated since its inception. Whoever controls gold dictates everything it is associated to. Since central banks and other similar organizations control most of the world's gold it is not in the best interest of any country to peg their currency to it.

After years of reading I have come to the conclusion that the best system is a fiat based system of money because nobody controls it except those that you allowed. The US allows private banks to control theirs and that is where it fails.

And how do the private banks control it? Who should control it? How?
 

Kuragami

Member
Jun 20, 2008
92
0
0
How do the private banks control it?

Answer: By having the government go to them to issue money. It's that simple.

Who should control it?

Answer: Government with strict controls, constitutionally amended if need be.

How?

Answer: By having the central bank (owned by the people) issue just enough money to allow trade and increment money with population growth. Even if large projects require large sums of money it would be issued by a bank owned by the people of said nation therefore all profits, if any via interest, would flow back to the public.

As an example you could do what Canada did from 1938 to 1974. Canada also financed itself out of the Depression as well as through WWII during this period. Until 1992 our grand total borrowing from ourselves as well as private banks was 37 billion. In 1974 our national debt was 18 billion and this was long after health care and social security was implemented. In 1974 private banks convinced the government to give them bonds in exchange for money instead of using the Bank of Canada. The banks also pushed business' to start borrowing large sums of money to expand while prior to this the vast majority of business was self funded. The interest owed to private banks in 1992 was 386 billion or 91.25% of the national debt.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Originally posted by: Kuragami
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX
Originally posted by: Kuragami
I don't see Obama in the US or Harper here in Canada doing any such thing as dumping debt based monetary policy.

Obama and Harper are stooges. We, the people, are the conduits of change in this country. The only reason we haven't change our policy now is because we rely too much on these assholes.

Originally posted by: Kuragami
What's the tune now 8.5 trillion pledged with about 3.5 trillion used? Won't be the last.

Agreed. Numbers are starting to become meaningless in terms of the dollar.
If they are stooges, so are their electora. The only conduits of change in this country are the ones watching dancing with the stars instead of so you think you can dance. I would bet your life on the fact that if you chose 10 random adults off the street and asked what a fiat monetary system is, only one or two would know. Granted, that doesn't mean they're stupid or even generally ignorant, but exemplifies the complexity of this issue. It's one thing arguing whether warrantless wiretapping should be legal or not, but something quite different to argue whether, and to what extent, the US should have a debt based monetary policy. Despite a great deal of time reading about all this, I'm still quite on the fence with it, and on most of the P&N topics I'm rather opinionated!

I'll make it easy for you to decide.

Option 1: Government prints its own money and by law not be allowed to expand the money supply beyond what is needed for trade and increased only by as much as the population increases thereby ensuring little to no inflation. Under this method when you borrow from yourself any interest payment you make goes back to the people.

Option 2: Government goes to a privately owned bank and asks for money. The government prints a piece of paper called a bond and asks that the private bank give it money. In exchange the bank is now being paid interest. Fast forward a few decades and you still have not paid off your debt and now owe perhaps ten times what you originally borrowed from the bank. Plus lets not forget industry and the private sector who do the exact same thing at the urging of banks.

I pick #2. Option 1 is horrible. Opens up for corruption and inefficiency. Plus kills growth prospects. Inflexible monetary policy will prolong economic downturns and limit economic prosperity.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Originally posted by: Kuragami
How do the private banks control it?

Answer: By having the government go to them to issue money. It's that simple.

Who should control it?

Answer: Government with strict controls, constitutionally amended if need be.

How?

Answer: By having the central bank (owned by the people) issue just enough money to allow trade and increment money with population growth. Even if large projects require large sums of money it would be issued by a bank owned by the people of said nation therefore all profits, if any via interest, would flow back to the public.

As an example you could do what Canada did from 1938 to 1974. Canada also financed itself out of the Depression as well as through WWII during this period. Until 1992 our grand total borrowing from ourselves as well as private banks was 37 billion. In 1974 our national debt was 18 billion and this was long after health care and social security was implemented. In 1974 private banks convinced the government to give them bonds in exchange for money instead of using the Bank of Canada. The banks also pushed business' to start borrowing large sums of money to expand while prior to this the vast majority of business was self funded. The interest owed to private banks in 1992 was 386 billion or 91.25% of the national debt.

How the hell does the govt know exactly how much money is "just enough"? A magic ball?

The US has arguably the world's largest gap between the rich and the poor.

So I take it you believe it's better that everyone is equally poor than to have huge gaps in wealth even though the masses have a very high standard of living?
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Originally posted by: Kuragami
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: Kuragami
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: Kuragami
I'll make it easy for you to decide.

Option 1: Government prints its own money and by law not be allowed to expand the money supply beyond what is needed for trade and increased only by as much as the population increases thereby ensuring little to no inflation. Under this method when you borrow from yourself any interest payment you make goes back to the people.

Option 2: Government goes to a privately owned bank and asks for money. The government prints a piece of paper called a bond and asks that the private bank give it money. In exchange the bank is now being paid interest. Fast forward a few decades and you still have not paid off your debt and now owe perhaps ten times what you originally borrowed from the bank. Plus lets not forget industry and the private sector who do the exact same thing at the urging of banks.
I really don't think it is that easy. What the government does now is a game and a ruse in certain ways, but the end result is that it has, even by a critical standard, tricked the world into rewarding the US and other Western nations with a great deal of wealth. There is credence to the idea that at some point the jig will be up, but thus far the fiat system has made the US tremendously wealthy and powerful.

Well I guess that depends on what you consider the US is. You would be correct if you said corporations. What about people?

The US has arguably the world's largest gap between the rich and the poor.

I get it. You're working toward a career in comedy?

I don't find this funny at all. If you want to contribute something other than witless one liners you are welcome to do so.

If you truly believe the US has the widest gap between the wealthy and poor, you're a comic or an idiot. Take your pick.
 

Kuragami

Member
Jun 20, 2008
92
0
0
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: Kuragami
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX
Originally posted by: Kuragami
I don't see Obama in the US or Harper here in Canada doing any such thing as dumping debt based monetary policy.

Obama and Harper are stooges. We, the people, are the conduits of change in this country. The only reason we haven't change our policy now is because we rely too much on these assholes.

Originally posted by: Kuragami
What's the tune now 8.5 trillion pledged with about 3.5 trillion used? Won't be the last.

Agreed. Numbers are starting to become meaningless in terms of the dollar.
If they are stooges, so are their electora. The only conduits of change in this country are the ones watching dancing with the stars instead of so you think you can dance. I would bet your life on the fact that if you chose 10 random adults off the street and asked what a fiat monetary system is, only one or two would know. Granted, that doesn't mean they're stupid or even generally ignorant, but exemplifies the complexity of this issue. It's one thing arguing whether warrantless wiretapping should be legal or not, but something quite different to argue whether, and to what extent, the US should have a debt based monetary policy. Despite a great deal of time reading about all this, I'm still quite on the fence with it, and on most of the P&N topics I'm rather opinionated!

I'll make it easy for you to decide.

Option 1: Government prints its own money and by law not be allowed to expand the money supply beyond what is needed for trade and increased only by as much as the population increases thereby ensuring little to no inflation. Under this method when you borrow from yourself any interest payment you make goes back to the people.

Option 2: Government goes to a privately owned bank and asks for money. The government prints a piece of paper called a bond and asks that the private bank give it money. In exchange the bank is now being paid interest. Fast forward a few decades and you still have not paid off your debt and now owe perhaps ten times what you originally borrowed from the bank. Plus lets not forget industry and the private sector who do the exact same thing at the urging of banks.

I pick #2. Option 1 is horrible. Opens up for corruption and inefficiency. Plus kills growth prospects. Inflexible monetary policy will prolong economic downturns and limit economic prosperity.

Corruption and inefficiency is irrelevant as the government still has to ask for the money prior to it being printed. At least this is true in Canada. The only difference is that you pass power from government to private business but either way there is a paper trail. There is this thing called accountability. In Canada we call it Stats Canada.

A business will grow as much as it reasonably can under a real free market economy. Big business' get into trouble due to their liabilities. I have one word for you; ENRON. I guess you could add several more words to that now and all of them are financial institutions. Business can fund itself if it is successful and if it can't it remains where it is. If it gets into trouble it could still go to a private bank for a loan.

Prolonging economic downturn and limited prosperity? Monetary history tells us that governments that issued their own currency and done so in a responsible manner flourished. This was true of the US prior to the Revolution and it was true in England You don't need to go to the 1800s to find an example. Canada did the same thing from 1938 to 1974 and allowed us to climb out of the Depression and pay for WWII. The Depression was the primary reason for the Bank of Canada and its federalization. While most other nations suffered and unemployment was rampant Canada was very well off. In fact the most successful fiat currency system worked flawlessly from 1100 to 1854 in England issued by the government and it allowed England to build an empire basically self financed.
 

Kuragami

Member
Jun 20, 2008
92
0
0
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: Kuragami
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: Kuragami
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: Kuragami
I'll make it easy for you to decide.

Option 1: Government prints its own money and by law not be allowed to expand the money supply beyond what is needed for trade and increased only by as much as the population increases thereby ensuring little to no inflation. Under this method when you borrow from yourself any interest payment you make goes back to the people.

Option 2: Government goes to a privately owned bank and asks for money. The government prints a piece of paper called a bond and asks that the private bank give it money. In exchange the bank is now being paid interest. Fast forward a few decades and you still have not paid off your debt and now owe perhaps ten times what you originally borrowed from the bank. Plus lets not forget industry and the private sector who do the exact same thing at the urging of banks.
I really don't think it is that easy. What the government does now is a game and a ruse in certain ways, but the end result is that it has, even by a critical standard, tricked the world into rewarding the US and other Western nations with a great deal of wealth. There is credence to the idea that at some point the jig will be up, but thus far the fiat system has made the US tremendously wealthy and powerful.

Well I guess that depends on what you consider the US is. You would be correct if you said corporations. What about people?

The US has arguably the world's largest gap between the rich and the poor.

I get it. You're working toward a career in comedy?

I don't find this funny at all. If you want to contribute something other than witless one liners you are welcome to do so.

If you truly believe the US has the widest gap between the wealthy and poor, you're a comic or an idiot. Take your pick.

Only people with small minds and lack of reading comprehension resort to personal insults. I already corrected my statement by adding that it was in the "industrialized world".

Depending on what formula is used the US comes in 4th, 3rd or 1st on the list. So what I said is true from a certain point of view.

If you wish you can look at it as the 4th worst gap between rich and poor in the industrialized world. Be a glass half full kind of guy if you want. I care not.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Originally posted by: Kuragami
Corruption and inefficiency is irrelevant as the government still has to ask for the money prior to it being printed. At least this is true in Canada. The only difference is that you pass power from government to private business but either way there is a paper trail. There is this thing called accountability. In Canada we call it Stats Canada.

A business will grow as much as it reasonably can under a real free market economy. Big business' get into trouble due to their liabilities. I have one word for you; ENRON. I guess you could add several more words to that now and all of them are financial institutions. Business can fund itself if it is successful and if it can't it remains where it is. If it gets into trouble it could still go to a private bank for a loan.

Prolonging economic downturn and limited prosperity? Monetary history tells us that governments that issued their own currency and done so in a responsible manner flourished. This was true of the US prior to the Revolution and it was true in England You don't need to go to the 1800s to find an example. Canada did the same thing from 1938 to 1974 and allowed us to climb out of the Depression and pay for WWII. The Depression was the primary reason for the Bank of Canada and its federalization. While most other nations suffered and unemployment was rampant Canada was very well off. In fact the most successful fiat currency system worked flawlessly from 1100 to 1854 in England issued by the government and it allowed England to build an empire basically self financed.

How is the US govt selling bonds to the public NOT accountability?

Who is going to decide how much money is needed for trade? Do you realize that the interest income the Federal Reserve generates is transferred to the treasury after the dividend? That sort of sounds like interest payments going back to the people. Not to mention most of the bonds are owned by US individuals and institution, further payments "back to the people."

Big businesses do not get into trouble due to liabilities, in fact you can argue it thrives because of liabilities aka credit. It's over leveraging that causes these crises to happen.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: Kuragami
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: Kuragami
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: Kuragami
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: Kuragami
I'll make it easy for you to decide.

Option 1: Government prints its own money and by law not be allowed to expand the money supply beyond what is needed for trade and increased only by as much as the population increases thereby ensuring little to no inflation. Under this method when you borrow from yourself any interest payment you make goes back to the people.

Option 2: Government goes to a privately owned bank and asks for money. The government prints a piece of paper called a bond and asks that the private bank give it money. In exchange the bank is now being paid interest. Fast forward a few decades and you still have not paid off your debt and now owe perhaps ten times what you originally borrowed from the bank. Plus lets not forget industry and the private sector who do the exact same thing at the urging of banks.
I really don't think it is that easy. What the government does now is a game and a ruse in certain ways, but the end result is that it has, even by a critical standard, tricked the world into rewarding the US and other Western nations with a great deal of wealth. There is credence to the idea that at some point the jig will be up, but thus far the fiat system has made the US tremendously wealthy and powerful.

Well I guess that depends on what you consider the US is. You would be correct if you said corporations. What about people?

The US has arguably the world's largest gap between the rich and the poor.

I get it. You're working toward a career in comedy?

I don't find this funny at all. If you want to contribute something other than witless one liners you are welcome to do so.

If you truly believe the US has the widest gap between the wealthy and poor, you're a comic or an idiot. Take your pick.

Only people with small minds and lack of reading comprehension resort to personal insults. I already corrected my statement by adding that it was in the "industrialized world".

Depending on what formula is used the US comes in 4th, 3rd or 1st on the list. So what I said is true from a certain point of view.

If you wish you can look at it as the 4th worst gap between rich and poor in the industrialized world. Be a glass half full kind of guy if you want. I care not.

There's also another type of person who'd resort to personal insults, those who know better and are just tired of the loonies spreading FUD.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: Kuragami
How do the private banks control it?

Answer: By having the government go to them to issue money. It's that simple.
The Fed is controlled by the government.

Who should control it?

Answer: Government with strict controls, constitutionally amended if need be.
Ohhh, so you think the government can do a better job? Aren't they the ones who put on $10TR in debt already?

How?

Answer: By having the central bank (owned by the people) issue just enough money to allow trade and increment money with population growth. Even if large projects require large sums of money it would be issued by a bank owned by the people of said nation therefore all profits, if any via interest, would flow back to the public.

As an example you could do what Canada did from 1938 to 1974. Canada also financed itself out of the Depression as well as through WWII during this period. Until 1992 our grand total borrowing from ourselves as well as private banks was 37 billion. In 1974 our national debt was 18 billion and this was long after health care and social security was implemented. In 1974 private banks convinced the government to give them bonds in exchange for money instead of using the Bank of Canada. The banks also pushed business' to start borrowing large sums of money to expand while prior to this the vast majority of business was self funded. The interest owed to private banks in 1992 was 386 billion or 91.25% of the national debt.

All profits from the Fed already goes to the people.

Business being "Self funded" is ridiculous and wasteful. You can't compare interest owed to private banks vs national debt, it's a silly measurement.
 

SleepWalkerX

Platinum Member
Jun 29, 2004
2,649
0
0
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Who should control it?

Answer: Government with strict controls, constitutionally amended if need be.
Ohhh, so you think the government can do a better job? Aren't they the ones who put on $10TR in debt already?

I don't understand. You don't trust gold, but you don't trust the government either? Why not let the market determine what money should be, whether it be gold, paper, oil, or whatever?