Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Banking and Money Conspiracy
Options
Comments
-
Tumble weeds are rolling on that thread.
You've not explained have infrastructure would be supported, how medicine would be made, how doctors would compensated. How people would be trained as farmers. How tractors would be manufactured, or oil processed. How research and development would exist.
Or hey hey just try and claim you made "one tiny flaw" and hope everyone ignores your hopeless moronic and infantile arrangement.
ah yes, I knew there was something I had to do, will sort it out for you tonight
0 -
Back to work wage slave.. go work and make money for the elites who were born into the position whereby they don't need to work to make the paper that controls your life.
Capitalism is a pyramid scheme.
Because yes, Mahatma's system where we all grow our own food, and somehow medicine and stuff will just arrive, somehow, is just, y'know, better.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
So you're not a wage-slave I take it?
Living off the very system you decry?
No, I'm a wage slave. But I know it.
anthithetic wrote:I think my favourite bit is how he mentions China's growth in a positive light but claims that we're being fleeced for oil. The two couldn't be connected by any chance, non? No, Standard Oil's high profits have nothing to do with their new 1.2bn customers, it's all sheer greed driven by capitalism! Overthrow the system and nobody will use oil anymore!
Of course, the increased demand from China is a factor, supply and demand etc. However, it is also apparent that the usual blatant corporate profiteering is at work when you look at the record profits posted by standard oil. I understand the system of increasing profits / shareholder obligations etc. But, as I stated, this is undesireable to the ordinary consumer, as we are being overcharged for the product when clearly there is no reason we should be.anthithetic wrote:My second favourite bit is the use of the phrase "race to the bottom". I've formulated a mathematical model on the "race to the bottom" phenomenon. What do you know about it, Kernal? Care to elaborate, or can we all just resort to catchphrase? Capitalism is freedom!
The race to the bottom is the process by which a corporation seeks to maximise profits at the expense of the employees and the consumer. The system by which a corporation will pay as little as possible, produce a product as cheaply as possible (poor quality components etc.) and charge the consumer as much as possible. Can you tell me who this system is good for? I never resort to catchphrases, I understand the system and have been a part of it for a long time.ucd_econ wrote:I think you scared him by using the word "mathematical"
Catchphrase economics will solve the world's problems!
Perhaps I'm older and wiser than yourself, but then again, that's an assumption on my part, based on your UCD nick. Experience goes a long way.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
I’m really not bothered explaining the economic benefits of profit maximisation, go Google it or pick up a book. You’re prospective is like that of someone who advocates windfall taxes on oil companies.You still haven't pointed out why being against gross profit maximisation is stupid of me?
Please don’t link sites that are insane enough to question whether courts may carry out judicial review. If you can’t explain the point you’re trying to make, a flurry of links doesn’t compensate.Quasi-State body?? It's a consortium of banks who decide how much money to print. Where is the government control of this body?
http://www.save-a-patriot.org/files/view/whofed.html
http://www.apfn.org/APFN/fed_reserve.htm
Second, I don’t know of many private ‘companies’ that are required by law to make biannual reports to a Legislature. If you believe what is on those sites then it’s probably a waste of my time in even trying to explain anything.
The democratic oversight comes in two forums: First, the U.S. President appoints the Governors of the Federal Reserve System (they, appointed by a democratically elected office, have a majority on the FOMC; 7/5). The second comes from Congress. The Fed’s legal mandates could be changed at any time by Congress & members of the FOMC are appointed by the U.S. President.
The government is delegating the task of a central monetary policy to the Fed. At any point that could be removed. That, the power and ability to manipulate and guide, is the definition of control. The power to print money should be separate from the power to spend it.
First, I need to point out that you said, “since they are influenced hugely by corporate interests”. Research who are the largest corporate contributors to political parties in the U.S., then consider the influence those interests could, in your view, wade over monetary policy.I don't actually have much faith in politicians, particularly in the US, since they are influenced hugely by corporate interests. However, at least the people have some voice in electing representatives and enacting policy changes and laws through political elections. There is no such power with a corporation, unless you are on the board.
But, I see the point you’re trying to make - so I’m going try to give a really, really brief history of central banking in the U.S. and then explain why there is general consensus that political independence for an NCB is important.
The Federal Reserve System in its current state comes from the 1913 Federal Reserve act, and structure wise from 1935 & 1978. The current system is the third attempt at central banking, the first lasted from 1791 to 1811, the second attempted also lasted twenty years from 1816 to 1836. Who took on Central Bank's role (monetary policy) between 1836 and 1913? The Treasury. This meant the there was political control of money and finance (favour might be given to certain interest...). Politicians are biased towards low rates of interest, high growth - inflation takes a back seat.
You then also had the problem of, what was a watermark of the times, a run on a bank, or multi-bank panics. There was nine I think between 1836 and 1913. Following the last in 1907 the Federal Reserve Act came into effect. Its structure (that you bemoan) was to avoid over centralisation, so you had 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks. The reason for this was to provide a broad view of activity from all sections of the country. Not trying to go into detail... standing facilities, lender of last resorts, federal insurance on deposits = more stable private banking sector = less average Joes lose their money when banks collapse.
You seem to advocate the average man/working Joe, yeah? Inflation hits those in the lowest income bracket worst. The few savings they have are eroded, the wages they are receive become subsistence level, unemployment, etc. Hence, you should consider inflation to be the scourge of the working class person. I’m going to link this again even though it’s on the first page:
This is a diagram you’ll get in any macro economics text. As you can see, since records began there is a high correlation between central bank’s independence and the general inflation rate. Why? Basically because independent economists can take actions without the thought, ‘I’m up for re-election next year, better not put up the interest rate to stop inflation creeping further.’ It’s the reason the ECB, whose sole mandate is price stability, i.e. low inflation across the EMU, is independent from political persuasion.
The structure is based on that of the Fed, regional banks, monetary policy executed through a policy committee. The structure you want to scrap, i.e. have congress printing money which is the equivalent of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China.Are you saying that communist China does not control it's own currency?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080807/...rency_controls
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/20/news/trade.php
The Chinese government doesn’t want to tackle inflation; it sees that as a barrier to growth (for them growth = politicl stability). Only recently it announced its sole aim was to push for growth, moving away from considering a retraction phase. This further reinforces the view that political control of monetary policy is bad. Just look at Zimbabwe.
You seem to intent on separating those in government and the pursuit of self-interest...I never claimed to be an expert in economics, but it is apparant to me that a government should control the finances of the country, rather than a group of banks serving their own interests.
Don’t reply with a flurry of links to sites that are clearly biased and of dubious believability.0 -
I’m really not bothered explaining the economic benefits of profit maximisation, go Google it or pick up a book. You’re prospective is like that of someone who advocates windfall taxes on oil companies.If you can’t explain the point you’re trying to make, a flurry of links doesn’t compensate.
See the irony?Second, I don’t know of many private ‘companies’ that are required by law to make biannual reports to a Legislature. If you believe what is on those sites then it’s probably a waste of my time in even trying to explain anything.
The democratic oversight comes in two forums: First, the U.S. President appoints the Governors of the Federal Reserve System (they, appointed by a democratically elected office, have a majority on the FOMC; 7/5). The second comes from Congress. The Fed’s legal mandates could be changed at any time by Congress & members of the FOMC are appointed by the U.S. President.
The government is delegating the task of a central monetary policy to the Fed. At any point that could be removed. That, the power and ability to manipulate and guide, is the definition of control. The power to print money should be separate from the power to spend it.
First, I need to point out that you said, “since they are influenced hugely by corporate interests”. Research who are the largest corporate contributors to political parties in the U.S., then consider the influence those interests could, in your view, wade over monetary policy.
But, I see the point you’re trying to make - so I’m going try to give a really, really brief history of central banking in the U.S. and then explain why there is general consensus that political independence for an NCB is important.
The Federal Reserve System in its current state comes from the 1913 Federal Reserve act, and structure wise from 1935 & 1978. The current system is the third attempt at central banking, the first lasted from 1791 to 1811, the second attempted also lasted twenty years from 1816 to 1836. Who took on Central Bank's role (monetary policy) between 1836 and 1913? The Treasury. This meant the there was political control of money and finance (favour might be given to certain interest...). Politicians are biased towards low rates of interest, high growth - inflation takes a back seat.
You then also had the problem of, what was a watermark of the times, a run on a bank, or multi-bank panics. There was nine I think between 1836 and 1913. Following the last in 1907 the Federal Reserve Act came into effect. Its structure (that you bemoan) was to avoid over centralisation, so you had 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks. The reason for this was to provide a broad view of activity from all sections of the country. Not trying to go into detail... standing facilities, lender of last resorts, federal insurance on deposits = more stable private banking sector = less average Joes lose their money when banks collapse.
You seem to advocate the average man/working Joe, yeah? Inflation hits those in the lowest income bracket worst. The few savings they have are eroded, the wages they are receive become subsistence level, unemployment, etc. Hence, you should consider inflation to be the scourge of the working class person. I’m going to link this again even though it’s on the first page:
This is a diagram you’ll get in any macro economics text. As you can see, since records began there is a high correlation between central bank’s independence and the general inflation rate. Why? Basically because independent economists can take actions without the thought, ‘I’m up for re-election next year, better not put up the interest rate to stop inflation creeping further.’ It’s the reason the ECB, whose sole mandate is price stability, i.e. low inflation across the EMU, is independent from political persuasion.
The structure is based on that of the Fed, regional banks, monetary policy executed through a policy committee. The structure you want to scrap, i.e. have congress printing money which is the equivalent of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China.
The Chinese government doesn’t want to tackle inflation; it sees that as a barrier to growth (for them growth = politicl stability). Only recently it announced its sole aim was to push for growth, moving away from considering a retraction phase. This further reinforces the view that political control of monetary policy is bad. Just look at Zimbabwe.
You seem to intent on separating those in government and the pursuit of self-interest...
Don’t reply with a flurry of links to sites that are clearly biased and of dubious believability.
Thanks for that, it was a good post with substance. I shall read up and take on board what you've said and try to reply as soon as I have time. Here's a link to a video which delves into the root of the corporate capitalist / credit / wage slave problem, which you may enjoy.0 -
Advertisement
Advertisement