What Could Go Wrong?
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (43)
sorted by:
No you're completely wrong about the fractional reserve system being the thing that provides access to the wealth. ANYTHING can be used as currency so long as everyone agrees on what. The British used to use polished sticks for example. Our government can and has issued currency that it regulated itself according to how much people needed in order to facilitate the trade that needed to be facilitated. There was no FRL necessary at all. The problem we have now is that we are using a currency that does not represent wealth because you are forced to pay back more than what they actually had that they could give you in the first place. You are actually giving them most of your wealth doing this in return for nothing. Seriously, how does you paying me $108 in return for the $10 that I was actually honestly able to give you in the first place help anyone other than me in any situation?
All of that stuff that was built could have been built exactly the same using currency issued by our own government instead of by the private Fed. Look into why the British forced the colonies to abandon colonial script by law. Look what happened and then look what the colonies did about it.
Actually the more I think about it the more I realize that you are arguing in bad faith. You really think that we MUST allow fraud in order for us to agree on what to trade with? On what a promise of value is? You're out of your mind.
I don't see why you're being rude. I'm not arguing in bad faith. It's a complicated subject. At least I think it's a complicated subject. Maybe you aren't thinking deeply enough about the implications.
Money should represent a store of value. Like storing extra rice for the winter. But when we want to use money to fund large projects we find there isn't enough of that stored rice to cover all the demands for credit. So either we have a credit crunch which constrains economic growth, or some entity, be it government or banks creates fictitious money not based on real stored value in order to facilitate the economic growth.
You say, "there was no FRL necessary at all" when the government issued their own currency rather than borrow it from a fed bank. And yet the history shows that those colonial scrips issued during the revolutionary era all devalued into worthlessness because the government issued too much of it to pay for their debts. There was no real stored value, no rice in a granary, backing up that paper. It was fictitious money used to facilitate production of goods needed to wage war.
So why is this government money printing substantially different from a fed printing and loaning the fictitious money to a government?
I don't think I have an answer to this problem. I tend to think all money should be based on a tangible asset so that it can be a reliable store of value. I like to think that when somebody works hard and sets aside part of their labor for future needs it should preserve its value, like gold bars in a vault. The idea that someone can eliminate the value of that stored labor at the stroke of a pen is odious and smells like theft. But that concept of money seems to constrain the availability of credit and thus slow down economic growth.
I don't find your assertion that this ceases to be a problem by eliminating the fed and FRL to be persuasive. I think you're just ignoring the issue.
And yet it worked perfectly before the British outlawed it and forced the colonies into poverty making war the only solution. If you want to talk about history then explain why Lincoln's greenbacks were a bad thing despite people demanding them to return, and then explain Lincoln's assasination.
Your coninued attempt to argue in favor of freely giving 80% of your wealth to bankers in return for nothing is truly evil.
And you still never answered how you build a billion dollar factory without fractional reserve lending.
Try again.