Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

the illuminanti-cabal and NWO

For discussions of events and conditions not necessarily related to Peak Oil.

Re: the illuminanti-cabal and NWO

Unread postby onlooker » Fri 27 Mar 2015, 12:12:42

From what I understand, it is a complicated history. For example, the Roman elite did not disappear they took on new roles in the Vatican. The Rothchilds have a particularly sordid history and have attained much power in the financial sector. The Rockefellers are present during the time of the Robber Barons and are aligned with the Rothchilds. In fact if you trace it far back in time it seems the Knight Templar and Free Masons became aligned because of mutual opposition to the established Cabal, meaning the Royalty of various European Countries and the Vatican. In particular the British royal family has played a prominent role. Again, all this should not be particularly surprising to people in so much as money does wield power, it has been the case and is. Also, whether you believe these elite-cabal like people are united and plotting and conspiring or not, the result is the same. They have all shown marked disregard the ordinary people and for the long terms welfare of people and the planet. Greed and power lust have been the trademark of the ruling /wealthy class. Again has been and is. History is quite clear about that. Notice how I use / , this is because the ruling governments and wealthy have always been so closely linked in almost a symbiotic relation. They you could say feed off each other and are many times one and the same. Psychologically speaking these people are in the grips of an addiction, addiction to power and money and these insatiable appetites create distorted and sometimes grotesque human beings.
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10957
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 13:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: the illuminanti-cabal and NWO

Unread postby kuidaskassikaeb » Fri 27 Mar 2015, 15:57:44

The Rothchilds have a particularly sordid history and have attained much power in the financial sector.


They were the representative Jewish bankers. They financed England's war against Napoleon and were somewhat larger than life. Basically they seem to have invented government bonds or at least were big players. Also I think they are part owners of the economist. Still I guess the weird part is why 19th century antisemetic writing is used to describe 21st century stuff.

In a lot of ways I agree with you. The world is run by a small elite, and you and I aren't asked for our opinions. And the people that are in charge are not particularly ethical. This is the stuff of conspiracy, and there are plenty of them that I believe. The government does spy on you, you can't trust the media. The CIA does kill and kidnap people, and so do lots of other governments. Where I don't agree with you is that they're all Jews and they call themselves Illuminati.
User avatar
kuidaskassikaeb
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 438
Joined: Fri 13 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: western new york

Re: the illuminanti-cabal and NWO

Unread postby onlooker » Fri 27 Mar 2015, 17:45:41

No K, I did not say they are all Jews. I too dislike the antisemetic references that seem to pop up when discussing the Cabal or Elite. Yet the Rothchilds are from accounts I read quite a power hungry family. As for the term Illuminati, that is bandied about by media and people in almost a generic manner, when in fact this group is a very specific group. So apologies I should stick to using just Cabal or Elite. :?
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10957
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 13:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: the illuminanti-cabal and NWO

Unread postby sparky » Sat 28 Mar 2015, 00:16:32

.
on the royal conspiracies , my favorite is the "Merovingian line "
The Merovingian Dynasty was founded by Merovech, aka Merovius I (410-459 AD).
This line of royalty leads directly to the Carolingian Dynasty, founded by Charles “the Hammer” Martel, whose grandson was Charlemagne
it's pretty silly , certainly by the 18th century anyone with some claim at nobility , including pretty much all the royalty was connected to the Merovingian bloodline either by descent or by mariage

So what , there was no conspiracy by the kings of Europe , in fact they warred against each other with enthusiasm
up to and including allying themselves with anyone which was available
as I've stated above , that was no conspiracy , though nobles would forget past grudges to slaughter rebellious subjects ,
that definitely was a cabal to keep power

the second objection is that down the years a certain amount of illicit sex might have made the descendants not so much related to Merovech and more to the local good looking rogue or priest
User avatar
sparky
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3587
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Sydney , OZ

Re: the illuminanti-cabal and NWO

Unread postby davep » Sat 28 Mar 2015, 03:22:19

onlooker wrote:I guess someday do away with money. Some kind of barter system and simply rewarding people with tangible benefits for a tangible contribution to society.


Money as equity rather than debt would be a good start. That way we (citizens, businessmen and government) wouldn't need growth just to pay off the interest to the banks.
What we think, we become.
User avatar
davep
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
 
Posts: 4578
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Europe

Re: the illuminanti-cabal and NWO

Unread postby davep » Sat 28 Mar 2015, 03:25:01

onlooker wrote:No K, I did not say they are all Jews. I too dislike the antisemetic references that seem to pop up when discussing the Cabal or Elite. Yet the Rothchilds are from accounts I read quite a power hungry family. As for the term Illuminati, that is bandied about by media and people in almost a generic manner, when in fact this group is a very specific group. So apologies I should stick to using just Cabal or Elite. :?


I think the current cabaltastic jew-hating comes from the fact that in medieval Europe they weren't allowed normal jobs nor the ability to own land. Banking was seen as dirty and was one of the jobs they could do. So if there are Jews involved in this cabal it's partly because their ancestors had little choice.
What we think, we become.
User avatar
davep
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
 
Posts: 4578
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Europe

Re: the illuminanti-cabal and NWO

Unread postby onlooker » Sat 28 Mar 2015, 04:02:29

Yes dave, that would be a good start cease the debt creation. Unfortunately, this is too lucrative for the banks they would never acquiesce.
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10957
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 13:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: the illuminanti-cabal and NWO

Unread postby radon1 » Sat 28 Mar 2015, 04:08:35

davep wrote:Money as equity rather than debt would be a good start.


How would this work?
radon1
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2054
Joined: Thu 27 Jun 2013, 06:09:44

Re: the illuminanti-cabal and NWO

Unread postby davep » Sat 28 Mar 2015, 06:20:01

radon1 wrote:
davep wrote:Money as equity rather than debt would be a good start.


How would this work?


Something akin to http://www.themoneymasters.com/monetary-reform-act/

Monetary Reform Act – A Summary (in four paragraphs)

This proposed law would require banks to increase their reserves on deposits from the current 10%, to 100%, over a one-year period. This would abolish fractional reserve banking (i.e., money creation by private banks) which depends upon fractional (i.e., partial) reserve lending. To provide the funds for this reserve increase, the US Treasury Department would be authorized to issue new United States Notes (and/or US Note accounts) sufficient in quantity to pay off the entire national debt (and replace all Federal Reserve Notes).

The funds required to pay off the national debt are always closely equivalent to the amount of money the banks have created by engaging in fractional lending because the Fed creates 10% of the money the government needs to finance deficit spending (and uses that newly created money to buy US bonds on the open market), then the banks create the other 90% as loans (as is explained on our FAQ page). Thus the national debt closely tracks the combined total of US Treasury debt held by the Fed (10%) and the amount of money created by private banks (90%).

Because this two-part action (increasing bank reserves to 100% and paying off the entire national debt) adds no net increase to the money supply (the two actions cancel each other in net effect on the money supply), it would cause neither inflation nor deflation, but would result in monetary stability and the end of the boom-bust pattern of US economic activity caused by our current, inherently unstable system.

Thus our entire national debt would be extinguished – thereby dramatically reducing or entirely eliminating the US budget deficit and the need for taxes to pay the $400+ billion interest per year on the national debt – and our economic system would be stabilized, while ending the terrible injustice of private banks being allowed to create over 90% of our money as loans on which they charge us interest. Wealth would cease to be concentrated in fewer and fewer hands as a result of private bank money creation. Thereafter, apart from a regular 3% annual increase (roughly matching population growth), only Congress would have the power to authorize changes in the US money supply – for public use -not private banks increasing only private bankers’ wealth.


or https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2012/wp12202.pdf

Conclusion

This paper revisits the Chicago Plan, a proposal for fundamental monetary reform that
was put forward by many leading U.S. economists at the height of the Great Depression.
Fisher (1936), in his brilliant summary of the Chicago Plan, claimed that it had four
major advantages, ranging from greater macroeconomic stability to much lower debt levels
throughout the economy. In this paper we are able to rigorously evaluate his claims, by
applying the recommendations of the Chicago Plan to a state-of-the-art monetary DSGE
model that contains a fully microfounded and carefully calibrated model of the current
U.S. financial system. The critical feature of this model is that the economy’s money
supply is created by banks, through debt, rather than being created debt-free by the
government.

Our analytical and simulation results fully validate Fisher’s (1936) claims. The Chicago
Plan could significantly reduce business cycle volatility caused by rapid changes in banks’
attitudes towards credit risk, it would eliminate bank runs, and it would lead to an
instantaneous and large reduction in the levels of both government and private debt. It
would accomplish the latter by making government-issued money, which represents equity
in the commonwealth rather than debt, the central liquid asset of the economy, while
banks concentrate on their strength, the extension of credit to investment projects that
require monitoring and risk management expertise. We find that the advantages of the
Chicago Plan go even beyond those claimed by Fisher. One additional advantage is large
steady state output gains due to the removal or reduction of multiple distortions,
including interest rate risk spreads, distortionary taxes, and costly monitoring of
macroeconomically unnecessary credit risks. Another advantage is the ability to drive
steady state inflation to zero in an environment where liquidity traps do not exist, and
where monetarism becomes feasible and desirable because the government does in fact
control broad monetary aggregates. This ability to generate and live with zero steady
state inflation is an important result, because it answers the somewhat confused claim of
opponents of an exclusive government monopoly on money issuance, namely that such a
monetary system would be highly inflationary. There is nothing in our theoretical
framework to support this claim. And as discussed in Section II, there is very little in the
monetary history of ancient societies and Western nations to support it either.


I'm open to any other non-Chicago-pan suggestions too.
What we think, we become.
User avatar
davep
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
 
Posts: 4578
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Europe

Re: the illuminanti-cabal and NWO

Unread postby radon1 » Sat 28 Mar 2015, 09:49:08

Ah, we've started to look at it a while ago... It can be best briefly summarized as follows, probably:

The key feature of this plan was that it called for the separation of the monetary and credit functions of the banking system, first by requiring 100% backing of deposits by government-issued money, and second by ensuring that the financing of new bank credit can only take place through earnings that have been retained in the form of government-issued money, or through the borrowing of existing government-issued money from non-banks, but not through the creation of new deposits, ex nihilo, by banks.


https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp ... p12202.pdf, right in the beginning of the Introduction section.

This actually gives rise to lots of questions/issues. Let's pick up one:

Sam borrows from a bank from the bank's available "retained earnings in the form of government-issued money". In a couple weeks Sam deposits some money into another bank, out of purely personal financial reasons, not planning any clever scheme. In effect, it's no different from the fractional system, Sam is just a conduit between the two banks who could lend directly to each other in absence of the "anti-ex-nihilio" restriction. Nothing changed, really, except much heavier regulation, - the fractional system is still in place. Why bother then (with all this heavier regulation)?
radon1
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2054
Joined: Thu 27 Jun 2013, 06:09:44

Re: the illuminanti-cabal and NWO

Unread postby davep » Sat 28 Mar 2015, 12:24:14

radon1 wrote:Ah, we've started to look at it a while ago... It can be best briefly summarized as follows, probably:

The key feature of this plan was that it called for the separation of the monetary and credit functions of the banking system, first by requiring 100% backing of deposits by government-issued money, and second by ensuring that the financing of new bank credit can only take place through earnings that have been retained in the form of government-issued money, or through the borrowing of existing government-issued money from non-banks, but not through the creation of new deposits, ex nihilo, by banks.


https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp ... p12202.pdf, right in the beginning of the Introduction section.

This actually gives rise to lots of questions/issues. Let's pick up one:

Sam borrows from a bank from the bank's available "retained earnings in the form of government-issued money". In a couple weeks Sam deposits some money into another bank, out of purely personal financial reasons, not planning any clever scheme. In effect, it's no different from the fractional system, Sam is just a conduit between the two banks who could lend directly to each other in absence of the "anti-ex-nihilio" restriction. Nothing changed, really, except much heavier regulation, - the fractional system is still in place. Why bother then (with all this heavier regulation)?


Not at all. Banks will need to have 100% reserves. Any speculative activity would be performed by entities that aren't banks.
What we think, we become.
User avatar
davep
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
 
Posts: 4578
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Europe

Re: the illuminanti-cabal and NWO

Unread postby radon1 » Sat 28 Mar 2015, 15:08:47

davep wrote:Not at all. Banks will need to have 100% reserves. Any speculative activity would be performed by entities that aren't banks.


These entities will not be different from banks in anything but name.

Anyway, the system that they describe above is not a "100% reserve" system. A "100% reserve" system requires that no lending takes place at all: its sole purpose is money safekeeping. The banks' sole purpose would thus be protection of the money from loss or theft, and they would need to charge a fee for this service to stay afloat. This was what the proto-banks - mostly jewelry houses - did before they figured that they could do full-scale banking.

The only purpose of the Chicago system above appears to be a ban for the banks to lend money to each other - this is what this word salad regarding "government-issued money" boils down to. But this way they are trying to hold water in a fishnet - put a non-banking intermediary in-between the banks a la Sam above and the ban is gotten around.

Ok, let's go for a wider picture.

Taking a step back - that measure essentially aims to crash the financial system, necessarily taking capitalism down with it. Before crashing capitalism, better think twice - what do you want to have in its stead. Or, maybe everyone wants to preserve the perceived (financial) capitalism's advantages while getting rid of its perceived disadvantages, but that will not work this way - basically, we are trying to fight the laws of nature.

Let's suppose that the money supply is regulated solely by the government. This actually smells Gosplan (state planning authority in a command economy). Suppose that we made the proposed reform - how are all the blue chip companies going to refinance themselves now? They are leveraged to their ears. The Gosplan would need to figure the required volume of the money supply, and if they miss, the economy would be hit heavily with under/over supply of money with all the consequences.

Let's further assume that Gosplan got the numbers right (in the old SU they often did actually) - but how are they going to regulate the money supply further down the road? They'll be issuing money - thus increasing money supply, but won't have instruments to cancel money thus reducing money supply, other than confiscatory ones. Moreover, treasury interest will exacerbate problem as it will be another source of continuous increase in the money supply, pretty much unmanageable one.

And we do not even touch the political issues related to money issuance by "a government" (not central bank).

By contrast, the fractional system is self-regulating. Money supply can both increase and decrease depending on the conditions in the economy - this is achieved via the variance in the multiplier, which is self-adjusting. Actually, the multiplier prior to the QE exceeded 10, while post QE it fell to around 4. Meaning that lots of money were printed by the "government", but the actual aggregate money supply could have even contracted. This happened due to lack of the profitable projects in the "consumer/real" sector - a symptom of capitalism reaching its limits, by the way.

So, this is not some conspiracy by evil banksters printing money to enrich themselves and enslave helpless populace. This is an objective process.
radon1
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2054
Joined: Thu 27 Jun 2013, 06:09:44

Re: the illuminanti-cabal and NWO

Unread postby onlooker » Sat 28 Mar 2015, 15:56:15

Radon, this fractional systems is unsustainable. The line in your own citation is telling " a symptom of capitalism reaching its limits, by the way." Also, I include this quote " At last count, the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury had committed $8.5 trillion to bailing out the banks from their follies.1 By comparison, M2, the largest measure of the money supply now reported by the Federal Reserve, was just under $8 trillion in December 2008.2 The sheer size of the bailout efforts indicates that the banking scheme has reached its mathematical limits and needs to be superseded by something more sustainable.". This is at heart a ponzi scheme. It is unstable and becoming ever more. In a contracting economy it can not function just like no ponzi scheme can. No more new money or funds means game over. By the way not just for fractional banking but for lending in general. Not to mention that as the economy becomes weaker we are bound to see a bank run which in itself will sorely test the fractional system. So that is why we are saying that the money system in general must be replaced by something more in tune with the new realities of a contracting economy rather then a growing one.
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10957
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 13:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: the illuminanti-cabal and NWO

Unread postby onlooker » Sat 28 Mar 2015, 16:28:09

Great post and link Dave, it makes a lot of sense. Also, do away with compound interest and slowly wean off of lending and borrowing to create an economy based upon actual assets and actual wealth. Again eventually weaning off of the concept of money itself and devising a system of re-compensation rather then re-numeration. People would offer some productive service to society and in turn society would compensate said person with certain necessities of life. Greed would be frowned upon, rather humans would seek gratification from contributing in a positive way to the well-being of all including themselves. Of course all this hopefully in a future where the concepts of greed and predatory capitalism are distant memories. A time when mankind finds fulfillment from creative and entertaining activities and simple harmony and peace rather then acquisition and ephemeral and base pleasures.
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10957
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 13:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: the illuminanti-cabal and NWO

Unread postby ralfy » Sat 28 Mar 2015, 22:18:30

Fractional reserve systems aren't self-regulating because banks operate through competition and price mechanisms.
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5571
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 11:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: the illuminanti-cabal and NWO

Unread postby radon1 » Sun 29 Mar 2015, 01:26:12

onlooker wrote:Radon, this fractional systems is unsustainable...


A key question of an unsustainable system is the time horizon of its unsustainability. It may be able to operate in a BAU manner another year, or decade, or century, or millennium. Before shifting to another mode of operation, this time horizon should rather be estimated, and the substitutes be carefully considered. Jumping off the cliff in the hope that the things will somehow get better because they cannot get worse, is not exactly a sound strategy.

The entire conspiracy theorizing is often variations of the "original sin" myth: the system is good, but some evil machinators came in and tainted it. The serpent tempted Eve and tainted the garden of Eden, evil bilderbergs tainted the capitalist heavens with their fractional banking machinations, evil bureaucrats tainted the proletariat paradise via corruption, and so on and so forth.

Yet the epoch of the evil banksters ensured that we can sit at the monitor ranting on a forum about machinations of the evil banksters. Well fed, and more or less confident in the future. Wishing to destroy the very financial assets that provide for this confidence, even if we sit on welfare.
radon1
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2054
Joined: Thu 27 Jun 2013, 06:09:44

Re: the illuminanti-cabal and NWO

Unread postby radon1 » Sun 29 Mar 2015, 01:30:07

ralfy wrote:Fractional reserve systems aren't self-regulating because banks operate through competition and price mechanisms.


In the context, the self-regulation via objective markets forces was meant, not an organizational self-regulation.
radon1
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2054
Joined: Thu 27 Jun 2013, 06:09:44

Re: the illuminanti-cabal and NWO

Unread postby davep » Sun 29 Mar 2015, 05:18:57

radon1 wrote:
ralfy wrote:Fractional reserve systems aren't self-regulating because banks operate through competition and price mechanisms.


In the context, the self-regulation via objective markets forces was meant, not an organizational self-regulation.


Objective market forces? What are they? All the major banks were technically insolvent in 2008 and were bailed out. Where's the market-forces self-regulation in that? And fractional reserve as you describe it is a myth. You don't believe me? Believe the BoE instead http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q1prereleasemoneycreation.pdf

Another common misconception is that the central bank determines the quantity of loans and deposits in the economy by controlling the quantity of central bank money — the so-called ‘money multiplier’ approach. In that view, central banks implement monetary policy by choosing a quantity of reserves. And, because there is assumed to be a constant ratio of broad money to base money, these reserves are then ‘multiplied up’ to a much greater change in bank loans and deposits. For the theory to hold, the amount of reserves must be a binding constraint on lending, and the central bank must directly determine the amount of reserves. While the money multiplier theory can be a useful way of introducing money and banking in economic textbooks, it is not an accurate description of how money is created in reality. Rather than controlling the quantity of reserves, central banks today typically implement monetary policy by setting the price of reserves — that is, interest rates.

In reality, neither are reserves a binding constraint on lending, nor does the central bank fix the amount of reserves that are available. As with the relationship between deposits and loans, the relationship between reserves and loans typically operates in the reverse way to that described in some economics textbooks. Banks first decide how much to lend depending on the profitable lending opportunities available to them — which will, crucially, depend on the interest rate set by the Bank of England. It is these lending decisions that determine how many bank deposits are created by the banking system. The amount of bank deposits in turn influences how much central bank money banks want to hold in reserve (to meet withdrawals by the public, make payments to other banks, or meet regulatory liquidity requirements), which is then, in normal times, supplied on demand by the Bank of England. The rest of this article discusses these practices in more detail.


And go and read the links I provided carefully. You may understand the reality of modern banking a bit more.
What we think, we become.
User avatar
davep
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
 
Posts: 4578
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Europe

Re: the illuminanti-cabal and NWO

Unread postby radon1 » Sun 29 Mar 2015, 07:01:20

davep wrote:Objective market forces? What are they? All the major banks were technically insolvent in 2008 and were bailed out. Where's the market-forces self-regulation in that? And fractional reserve as you describe it is a myth.


Of course they were insolvent and were bailed out, not arguing with that. So what? Let them sink thus paralyzing the entire money circulation system? What's next? Trade via barter? Think that anyone would be better off out of it? It would hit everyone very badly, including every Joe.

Market self-regulation: economy is on an upswing -> people borrow more -> people deposit more thus extending the banks' lending capacity -> banks lend more -> people borrow more -> money supply grows; economy is on an downswing -> the same things happen but the opposite way -> money supply contracts. Deleveraging, hopefully orderly. Automatically. Can be disorderly, but this is not my fault - welcome to capitalism.

Never said that statutory reserve limits are in any way binding to money supply - they may or may not be, but this needs further exploration, I am not so deep into this matter. I was talking about the market-ascertained multiplier. My understanding is that the statutory reserve limits are more a risk management tool rather than money supply one. The latter is regulated more via interest rates.

The point is, fractional banking is the very heart of the financial sector and thus of capitalism. The attack on fractional banking is an attempt to improve capitalism by way of killing capitalism.

I am not unhappy with capitalism. I am not unhappy with those who are unhappy with capitalism and want to dismantle it. Just making the point, that prior to dismantling capitalism, the alternatives have to be thoroughly thought over. Make sure that you are not cutting the branch of the tree on which you are sitting, just in case.

There can be some secret cabal that are sitting out there and conspiring over how to retain their power, this would be quite natural. But thinking that crashing this cabal and shutting down fractional banking is the same thing is an utter delusion. A group of interests and an indivisible attribute of an economic order is not the same thing. This is like paining a yellow wooden fence into red and saying that this fence is now made of brick because we painted it red.
radon1
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2054
Joined: Thu 27 Jun 2013, 06:09:44

Re: the illuminanti-cabal and NWO

Unread postby davep » Sun 29 Mar 2015, 07:18:09

radon1 wrote:
davep wrote:Objective market forces? What are they? All the major banks were technically insolvent in 2008 and were bailed out. Where's the market-forces self-regulation in that? And fractional reserve as you describe it is a myth.


Of course they were insolvent and were bailed out, not arguing with that. So what? Let them sink thus paralyzing the entire money circulation system? What's next? Trade via barter? Think that anyone would be better off out of it? It would hit everyone very badly, including every Joe.


Don't pretend there is any form of market-forces self-regulation if banks can be allowed to take huge risks and then get bailed out. It's a one way street. They make money, we get into debt. They take risks, we pay. The free market does not apply when banks are the primary source of money creation of the economy.

Market self-regulation: economy is on an upswing -> people borrow more -> people deposit more thus extending the banks' lending capacity -> banks lend more -> people borrow more -> money supply grows; economy is on an downswing -> the same things happen but the opposite way -> money supply contracts. Deleveraging, hopefully orderly. Automatically. Can be disorderly, but this is not my fault - welcome to capitalism.

Never said that statutory reserve limits are in any way binding to money supply - they may or may not be, but this needs further exploration, I am not so deep into this matter. I was talking about the market-ascertained multiplier. My understanding is that the statutory reserve limits are more a risk management tool rather than money supply one. The latter is regulated more via interest rates.

The point is, fractional banking is the very heart of the financial sector and thus of capitalism. The attack on fractional banking is an attempt to improve capitalism by way of killing capitalism.


Frankly I'd rather take the word of renowned economists than yours. Please explain your thinking.

I am not unhappy with capitalism. I am not unhappy with those who are unhappy with capitalism and want to dismantle it. Just making the point, that prior to dismantling capitalism, the alternatives have to be thoroughly thought over. Make sure that you are not cutting the branch of the tree on which you are sitting, just in case.


Money creation as credit is not an inherent part of capitalism. Many capitalist countries only went over to the short-termist UK/US central bank model after the 2nd world war.

There can be some secret cabal that are sitting out there and conspiring over how to retain their power, this would be quite natural. But thinking that crashing this cabal and shutting down fractional banking is the same thing is an utter delusion. A group of interests and an indivisible attribute of an economic order is not the same thing. This is like paining a yellow wooden fence into red and saying that this fence is now made of brick because we painted it red.


Both articles I linked to above go into detail about how to transition from the current economic system to the new one in detail. And for you to be credible you'd need to be arguing against their conclusions rather than just making up your own.
What we think, we become.
User avatar
davep
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
 
Posts: 4578
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Europe

PreviousNext

Return to Geopolitics & Global Economics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests