Constitutional Law
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Well, the problem with the free market economy is the naturally-occurring "boom and bust" cycle.
The boom and bust cycle is manufactured by the central bankers. As we can see, we are in a severe bust after the bubbles created by the fed's loose lending and inflationary policies. now we have over 20% real unemployment.
... You know we can prove this wrong by moving back along the data trail to when central banking was simply impractical to have any form of control over a global or even national economy. The fact that it can happen in different industries at different times should also lend credence to it not being some grand conspiracy, but rather the result of a panicky consumer base.
-
I've been researching this subject for over a year now. Let's see how the fractional reserve process works, in the absence of a central bank. I set up a Rothbard Bank, and invest $1,000 of cash (whether gold or government paper does not matter here). Then I "lend out" $10,000 to someone, either for consumer spending or to invest in his business. How can I "lend out" far more than I have? Ahh, that's the magic of the "fraction" in the fractional reserve. I simply open up a checking account of $10,000 which I am happy to lend to Mr. Jones. Why does Jones borrow from me? Well, for one thing, I can charge a lower rate of interest than savers would. I don't have to save up the money myself, but simply can counterfeit it out of thin air. (In the nineteenth century, I would have been able to issue bank notes, but the Federal Reserve now monopolizes note issues.) Since demand deposits at the Rothbard Bank function as equivalent to cash, the nation's money supply has just, by magic, increased by $10,000. The inflationary, counterfeiting process is under way.
If you'd researched it, you wouldn't make such an obvious mistake. They can't lend out money they don't have. They can lend out money that they're borrowing from someone else. You deposit $1000 into Bank A. It sits in your savings account. Bank A keeps $200 of that around, in case you want to withdraw some, and lends the other $800 to Bank B. Bank B keeps 20% ($160) and lends the rest ($640) to Bank C. So what do they have now? Bank A has $1000 ($200 + what Bank B owes them) Bank B has $800 ($160 + what Bank C owes them) Bank C has $640 Suddenly that $1000 has now multiplied to $2440 in just two steps. That's how fractional reserve banking works. It's banks lending out the money that they're borrowing. The issue of course is that if you go to withdraw $1000, Bank A doesn't have that much on them... Of course, if Bank A has a hundred customers, each of which have $1000 in there, then they have $20,000 ($1000 x 100 x 20%) in their vaults, and can pay you from that. If more than 20 of their customers decided to close their accounts, before the bank can adjust by recalling some of its loans, then you have what's known as a "bank run"
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
-
The very act of "balance" is totally against the ideals of a free market economy. the government should not be a part of this. the problem is, this is a bank; it is not part of the government. they're working in collusion; why hasn't HR1207 passed yet?! there are 309 cosponsors of this bill; if TPTB really wanted it to pass, it would have under suspension already. The very fact that they have not passed it for 10 months means that they are hiding something. And by "they" I mean both the FR and our federalnational government.
josda1000 wrote:
The very act of "balance" is totally against the ideals of a free market economy.
The existence of personal property rights is against a free market as well, but I've yet to meet anyone who supported a free economy who didn't support them as well. I mean in a free economy, who's to tell a company they can't sell your possessions? Anything like that would be regulation. Which is pretty much why I dismiss a pure free-economy as nonsense. It isn't really a strawman when people really mean a free market, but if you don't mind a bit of regulation in there you should be using the regulated market, or mixed economy.
-
The dollar has lost over 95% of its value since the fed was established. That is almost the entire US economy and other countries economies that use the dollar, stolen over the period of 100 years. What could be done with many 20 trillion of dollars (in today's value) (World Bank states there over 40 trillion dollars in all the worlds currencies (but US dollar is dominate so I estimated half)) spent over the period of 100 years? That is about 500 million dollars spent EVERY DAY for 100 YEARS! Why would you think that stealing that much money from the people is okay? What was-andis that money being spent on? How is it being used to change society? What kind of damage has been inflicted upon the world with all of this misplaced monetary power.
Stop this tired rhetoric... If you had your money in a savings account or CDs for those years, making 3% a year, you'd still have the same spending power as before. The only people hurt by normal inflation are the ones who keep their money under their beds instead of letting it circulate in the economy.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
-
Ah! Quite the contrary! I'm 24 years old. I got out of school about 2 years ago. I woke up just at the time when the bailouts were about to be passed; Obama and McCain were running (and NOT the only people running!). They both said they didn't want to pass the bill, but "they had to!" No. They did not have to. And that started us on the real path toward what I perceive as fascism. They passed the bill, even though both said they wouldn't. That gave me a rude awakening. So I looked for something else... I ended up looking at the Libertarian Party. And you know what? More people my age are easing into this old/new party. Because we want to be free from all of this bull. So yes, there's something to do. Go watch my video.
josda1000 wrote:
And that started us on the real path toward what I perceive as fascism.
I have to ask, how much time have you spent looking into the roots of fascism. I have a rather morbid interest in the subject myself and I have to say this is hardly the approach taken by either of the early fascist movements, nor is it even a remote analog of them.
-
josda1000 wrote:
And that started us on the real path toward what I perceive as fascism.
I have to ask, how much time have you spent looking into the roots of fascism. I have a rather morbid interest in the subject myself and I have to say this is hardly the approach taken by either of the early fascist movements, nor is it even a remote analog of them.
Fascism is the merger of state and corporate powers. Federal Reserve. Bailouts. Unempolyement, conservatively, is around 17%. Wars going on with us involved for around 100 years. Yeah, I'd say this is becoming, if not already, fascist. The more we just do nothing, the more that government will encroach. Along with the corporations. Check out Gerald Celente... he'll tell you about the mafia and how that's exactly what we have.
-
josda1000 wrote:
The very act of "balance" is totally against the ideals of a free market economy.
The existence of personal property rights is against a free market as well, but I've yet to meet anyone who supported a free economy who didn't support them as well. I mean in a free economy, who's to tell a company they can't sell your possessions? Anything like that would be regulation. Which is pretty much why I dismiss a pure free-economy as nonsense. It isn't really a strawman when people really mean a free market, but if you don't mind a bit of regulation in there you should be using the regulated market, or mixed economy.
No... personal property rights is against socialism/communism and their ideals. Personal property gives people freedom to do what they want. They can freely enter contracts (common law) as they see fit. They can exchange/barter/sell as they see fit. The opposite of personal property is governmental/public property. If that were the case, it'd be divided and rationed to be equal among the populous. If that's the way you want it, fine. But don't make me buy orange juice when I just want more cranberry juice. Don't give me an equal portion of cole slaw when I want double the fries. You see where I'm going with this? I don't want public healthcare, I want to buy my own healthcare and create a contract with a company that way. That's why you're totally misguided, in my opinion.
-
I've considered going into Law, but I don't have the patience for it and I could never do criminal defense without having to quietly murder a sizable fraction of my clients. But I doubt that's the education you're referring to. Between my understanding of how to write a difficult to dispute or misunderstand document, and how much history I've read and generally grasp. I get the feeling I know considerably more than you do about this entire thing. But since I have a different view than you, I'm apparently not educated. Have you tried actually proving me wrong rather than insulting me? I've posed a couple of questions which would allow you to do just that.
You can start with that documentary. Its an excellent piece of work that is enjoyable to watch and informative, until then your questions are on hold.
-
If you'd researched it, you wouldn't make such an obvious mistake. They can't lend out money they don't have. They can lend out money that they're borrowing from someone else. You deposit $1000 into Bank A. It sits in your savings account. Bank A keeps $200 of that around, in case you want to withdraw some, and lends the other $800 to Bank B. Bank B keeps 20% ($160) and lends the rest ($640) to Bank C. So what do they have now? Bank A has $1000 ($200 + what Bank B owes them) Bank B has $800 ($160 + what Bank C owes them) Bank C has $640 Suddenly that $1000 has now multiplied to $2440 in just two steps. That's how fractional reserve banking works. It's banks lending out the money that they're borrowing. The issue of course is that if you go to withdraw $1000, Bank A doesn't have that much on them... Of course, if Bank A has a hundred customers, each of which have $1000 in there, then they have $20,000 ($1000 x 100 x 20%) in their vaults, and can pay you from that. If more than 20 of their customers decided to close their accounts, before the bank can adjust by recalling some of its loans, then you have what's known as a "bank run"
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
The fed can create new money. If they couldn't do that then we wouldn't have inflation.
-
Stop this tired rhetoric... If you had your money in a savings account or CDs for those years, making 3% a year, you'd still have the same spending power as before. The only people hurt by normal inflation are the ones who keep their money under their beds instead of letting it circulate in the economy.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
I wont stop until we have a sound monetary system.
-
The fed can create new money. If they couldn't do that then we wouldn't have inflation.
The TREASURY creates new money. The Fed does not.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
-
The TREASURY creates new money. The Fed does not.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
-
Wait, I'm partially mistaken. Under normal circumstances, the Fed does not create new money... It only does it when the usual interest rate adjustments fail... It's what they call "quantitative easing", part of their open market operations... Basically, they temporarily create or destroy money (electronically) to correct the economy, then reverse it afterwards. We're actually in the middle of that now, as is the UK, thanks to the global recession.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
-
But it's not illegal, because "effects" doesn't necessarily include data being transmitted over someone else's wires. You may want to define it that way, but it's not written that way. That's what law is all about... Interpreting language. That's why contracts are so long and difficult to read... Because they try to make sure everything is defined exactly, leaving no room for interpretation.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
So you are saying that if I drive on a private road the 4th amendment doesn't matter anymore? You are wrong.
-
So you are saying that if I drive on a private road the 4th amendment doesn't matter anymore? You are wrong.
You mean after you're arrested for trespassing?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
-
You mean after you're arrested for trespassing?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
What if he has permission to be on that road?
-
What if he has permission to be on that road?
Then what's your point?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
-
Then what's your point?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
The 4th amendment stands. End the Fed. Ron Paul.
-
The 4th amendment stands. End the Fed. Ron Paul.
What does driving on a private road have to do with anything? When it's a phone call or an internet transmission, it's not YOU on that "private road", it's an electronic signal. The point is that a bunch of electrons on someone else's wires don't necessarily count as your "effects", hence separate laws are needed to govern wiretapping.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
-
What does driving on a private road have to do with anything? When it's a phone call or an internet transmission, it's not YOU on that "private road", it's an electronic signal. The point is that a bunch of electrons on someone else's wires don't necessarily count as your "effects", hence separate laws are needed to govern wiretapping.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Developer, Author (Guardians of Xen)
bullshit. I can fax my papers, they are still my papers even though their format has changed.