Liberal Forum

...first, 'liberal forum' is to be applauded for the 'no holds barred political forum'....i've tried numerous times on other sites to expose monetary ignorance/ignoramuses but i've ALWAYS been banned, etc., by the [stoooooopid **** republicrat] mods...thanks to lf, hopefully, we are all going to learn something about 'money' and some of us are going to have some wicked good fun exposing the loud republicrat numbskulls who frequently work their gaping pie holes about 'the illion dollar economy' absent an honest clue as to the hideous origin and nature of even one dollar...[heads up, radio republicans!]

...hmmmm, now where do i start?...here's an article from a mainstream outfit that i'll use to kick off what i hope will be the most popular thread in political forum history!:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -austerity

Back in the 1930s, Henry Ford is supposed to have remarked that it was a good thing that most Americans didn't know how banking really works, because if they did, "there'd be a revolution before tomorrow morning."

Last week, something remarkable happened. The Bank of England let the cat out of the bag. In a paper called "Money Creation in the Modern Economy", co-authored by three economists from the Bank's Monetary Analysis Directorate, they stated outright that most common assumptions of how banking works are simply wrong, and that the kind of populist, heterodox positions more ordinarily associated with groups such as Occupy Wall Street are correct. In doing so, they have effectively thrown the entire theoretical basis for austerity out of the window.

To get a sense of how radical the Bank's new position is, consider the conventional view, which continues to be the basis of all respectable debate on public policy. People put their money in banks. Banks then lend that money out at interest – either to consumers, or to entrepreneurs willing to invest it in some profitable enterprise. True, the fractional reserve system does allow banks to lend out considerably more than they hold in reserve, and true, if savings don't suffice, private banks can seek to borrow more from the central bank.

The central bank can print as much money as it wishes. But it is also careful not to print too much. In fact, we are often told this is why independent central banks exist in the first place. If governments could print money themselves, they would surely put out too much of it, and the resulting inflation would throw the economy into chaos. Institutions such as the Bank of England or US Federal Reserve were created to carefully regulate the money supply to prevent inflation. This is why they are forbidden to directly fund the government, say, by buying treasury bonds, but instead fund private economic activity that the government merely taxes.

It's this understanding that allows us to continue to talk about money as if it were a limited resource like bauxite or petroleum, to say "there's just not enough money" to fund social programmes, to speak of the immorality of government debt or of public spending "crowding out" the private sector. What the Bank of England admitted this week is that none of this is really true. To quote from its own initial summary: "Rather than banks receiving deposits when households save and then lending them out, bank lending creates deposits" … "In normal times, the central bank does not fix the amount of money in circulation, nor is central bank money 'multiplied up' into more loans and deposits."

In other words, everything we know is not just wrong – it's backwards. When banks make loans, they create money. This is because money is really just an IOU. The role of the central bank is to preside over a legal order that effectively grants banks the exclusive right to create IOUs of a certain kind, ones that the government will recognise as legal tender by its willingness to accept them in payment of taxes. There's really no limit on how much banks could create, provided they can find someone willing to borrow it. They will never get caught short, for the simple reason that borrowers do not, generally speaking, take the cash and put it under their mattresses; ultimately, any money a bank loans out will just end up back in some bank again. So for the banking system as a whole, every loan just becomes another deposit. What's more, insofar as banks do need to acquire funds from the central bank, they can borrow as much as they like; all the latter really does is set the rate of interest, the cost of money, not its quantity. Since the beginning of the recession, the US and British central banks have reduced that cost to almost nothing. In fact, with "quantitative easing" they've been effectively pumping as much money as they can into the banks, without producing any inflationary effects.

What this means is that the real limit on the amount of money in circulation is not how much the central bank is willing to lend, but how much government, firms, and ordinary citizens, are willing to borrow. Government spending is the main driver in all this (and the paper does admit, if you read it carefully, that the central bank does fund the government after all). So there's no question of public spending "crowding out" private investment. It's exactly the opposite.

Why did the Bank of England suddenly admit all this? Well, one reason is because it's obviously true. The Bank's job is to actually run the system, and of late, the system has not been running especially well. It's possible that it decided that maintaining the fantasy-land version of economics that has proved so convenient to the rich is simply a luxury it can no longer afford.

But politically, this is taking an enormous risk. Just consider what might happen if mortgage holders realised the money the bank lent them is not, really, the life savings of some thrifty pensioner, but something the bank just whisked into existence through its possession of a magic wand which we, the public, handed over to it.

Historically, the Bank of England has tended to be a bellwether, staking out seeming radical positions that ultimately become new orthodoxies. If that's what's happening here, we might soon be in a position to learn if Henry Ford was right."

Oh my gosh. A long winded ****!!!

...btw, as private dildo has reminded us, there will be a whole lot of stoooooooooooopid **** monetary ignoramus radio republicans with NOTHING of value to add to thi$ $ubject who will try to derail this thread...monetary realists will know these stooooooooooooooopid ****---like private dildo, et al--- by their vapid, know-nothing posts like post #2!...

peepee » 05 Nov 2017 11:34 pm » wrote:Peepee on Money

There is already a thread on this subject in which you posted... and ad nauseam too, I might add...

POSTED

peepee » 05 Nov 2017 11:34 pm » wrote:...first, 'liberal forum' is to be applauded for the 'no holds barred political forum'....i've tried numerous times on other sites to expose monetary ignorance/ignoramuses but i've ALWAYS been banned, etc., by the [stoooooopid **** republicrat] mods...thanks to lf, hopefully, we are all going to learn something about 'money' and some of us are going to have some wicked good fun exposing the loud republicrat numbskulls who frequently work their gaping pie holes about 'the illion dollar economy' absent an honest clue as to the hideous origin and nature of even one dollar...[heads up, radio republicans!]

...hmmmm, now where do i start?...here's an article from a mainstream outfit that i'll use to kick off what i hope will be the most popular thread in political forum history!:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -austerity

Back in the 1930s, Henry Ford is supposed to have remarked that it was a good thing that most Americans didn't know how banking really works, because if they did, "there'd be a revolution before tomorrow morning."

Last week, something remarkable happened. The Bank of England let the cat out of the bag. In a paper called "Money Creation in the Modern Economy", co-authored by three economists from the Bank's Monetary Analysis Directorate, they stated outright that most common assumptions of how banking works are simply wrong, and that the kind of populist, heterodox positions more ordinarily associated with groups such as Occupy Wall Street are correct. In doing so, they have effectively thrown the entire theoretical basis for austerity out of the window.

To get a sense of how radical the Bank's new position is, consider the conventional view, which continues to be the basis of all respectable debate on public policy. People put their money in banks. Banks then lend that money out at interest – either to consumers, or to entrepreneurs willing to invest it in some profitable enterprise. True, the fractional reserve system does allow banks to lend out considerably more than they hold in reserve, and true, if savings don't suffice, private banks can seek to borrow more from the central bank.

The central bank can print as much money as it wishes. But it is also careful not to print too much. In fact, we are often told this is why independent central banks exist in the first place. If governments could print money themselves, they would surely put out too much of it, and the resulting inflation would throw the economy into chaos. Institutions such as the Bank of England or US Federal Reserve were created to carefully regulate the money supply to prevent inflation. This is why they are forbidden to directly fund the government, say, by buying treasury bonds, but instead fund private economic activity that the government merely taxes.

It's this understanding that allows us to continue to talk about money as if it were a limited resource like bauxite or petroleum, to say "there's just not enough money" to fund social programmes, to speak of the immorality of government debt or of public spending "crowding out" the private sector. What the Bank of England admitted this week is that none of this is really true. To quote from its own initial summary: "Rather than banks receiving deposits when households save and then lending them out, bank lending creates deposits" … "In normal times, the central bank does not fix the amount of money in circulation, nor is central bank money 'multiplied up' into more loans and deposits."

In other words, everything we know is not just wrong – it's backwards. When banks make loans, they create money. This is because money is really just an IOU. The role of the central bank is to preside over a legal order that effectively grants banks the exclusive right to create IOUs of a certain kind, ones that the government will recognise as legal tender by its willingness to accept them in payment of taxes. There's really no limit on how much banks could create, provided they can find someone willing to borrow it. They will never get caught short, for the simple reason that borrowers do not, generally speaking, take the cash and put it under their mattresses; ultimately, any money a bank loans out will just end up back in some bank again. So for the banking system as a whole, every loan just becomes another deposit. What's more, insofar as banks do need to acquire funds from the central bank, they can borrow as much as they like; all the latter really does is set the rate of interest, the cost of money, not its quantity. Since the beginning of the recession, the US and British central banks have reduced that cost to almost nothing. In fact, with "quantitative easing" they've been effectively pumping as much money as they can into the banks, without producing any inflationary effects.

What this means is that the real limit on the amount of money in circulation is not how much the central bank is willing to lend, but how much government, firms, and ordinary citizens, are willing to borrow. Government spending is the main driver in all this (and the paper does admit, if you read it carefully, that the central bank does fund the government after all). So there's no question of public spending "crowding out" private investment. It's exactly the opposite.

Why did the Bank of England suddenly admit all this? Well, one reason is because it's obviously true. The Bank's job is to actually run the system, and of late, the system has not been running especially well. It's possible that it decided that maintaining the fantasy-land version of economics that has proved so convenient to the rich is simply a luxury it can no longer afford.

But politically, this is taking an enormous risk. Just consider what might happen if mortgage holders realised the money the bank lent them is not, really, the life savings of some thrifty pensioner, but something the bank just whisked into existence through its possession of a magic wand which we, the public, handed over to it.

Historically, the Bank of England has tended to be a bellwether, staking out seeming radical positions that ultimately become new orthodoxies. If that's what's happening here, we might soon be in a position to learn if Henry Ford was right."

TL;DR

You probably weren't banned for your content. You were probably banned due to your wonderful charm and demeanor.

peepee » 05 Nov 2017 11:34 pm » wrote:...first, 'liberal forum' is to be applauded for the 'no holds barred political forum'....i've tried numerous times on other sites to expose monetary ignorance/ignoramuses but i've ALWAYS been banned, etc., by the [stoooooopid **** republicrat] mods...thanks to lf, hopefully, we are all going to learn something about 'money' and some of us are going to have some wicked good fun exposing the loud republicrat numbskulls who frequently work their gaping pie holes about 'the illion dollar economy' absent an honest clue as to the hideous origin and nature of even one dollar...[heads up, radio republicans!]

...hmmmm, now where do i start?...here's an article from a mainstream outfit that i'll use to kick off what i hope will be the most popular thread in political forum history!:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -austerity

Back in the 1930s, Henry Ford is supposed to have remarked that it was a good thing that most Americans didn't know how banking really works, because if they did, "there'd be a revolution before tomorrow morning."

Last week, something remarkable happened. The Bank of England let the cat out of the bag. In a paper called "Money Creation in the Modern Economy", co-authored by three economists from the Bank's Monetary Analysis Directorate, they stated outright that most common assumptions of how banking works are simply wrong, and that the kind of populist, heterodox positions more ordinarily associated with groups such as Occupy Wall Street are correct. In doing so, they have effectively thrown the entire theoretical basis for austerity out of the window.

To get a sense of how radical the Bank's new position is, consider the conventional view, which continues to be the basis of all respectable debate on public policy. People put their money in banks. Banks then lend that money out at interest – either to consumers, or to entrepreneurs willing to invest it in some profitable enterprise. True, the fractional reserve system does allow banks to lend out considerably more than they hold in reserve, and true, if savings don't suffice, private banks can seek to borrow more from the central bank.

The central bank can print as much money as it wishes. But it is also careful not to print too much. In fact, we are often told this is why independent central banks exist in the first place. If governments could print money themselves, they would surely put out too much of it, and the resulting inflation would throw the economy into chaos. Institutions such as the Bank of England or US Federal Reserve were created to carefully regulate the money supply to prevent inflation. This is why they are forbidden to directly fund the government, say, by buying treasury bonds, but instead fund private economic activity that the government merely taxes.

It's this understanding that allows us to continue to talk about money as if it were a limited resource like bauxite or petroleum, to say "there's just not enough money" to fund social programmes, to speak of the immorality of government debt or of public spending "crowding out" the private sector. What the Bank of England admitted this week is that none of this is really true. To quote from its own initial summary: "Rather than banks receiving deposits when households save and then lending them out, bank lending creates deposits" … "In normal times, the central bank does not fix the amount of money in circulation, nor is central bank money 'multiplied up' into more loans and deposits."

In other words, everything we know is not just wrong – it's backwards. When banks make loans, they create money. This is because money is really just an IOU. The role of the central bank is to preside over a legal order that effectively grants banks the exclusive right to create IOUs of a certain kind, ones that the government will recognise as legal tender by its willingness to accept them in payment of taxes. There's really no limit on how much banks could create, provided they can find someone willing to borrow it. They will never get caught short, for the simple reason that borrowers do not, generally speaking, take the cash and put it under their mattresses; ultimately, any money a bank loans out will just end up back in some bank again. So for the banking system as a whole, every loan just becomes another deposit. What's more, insofar as banks do need to acquire funds from the central bank, they can borrow as much as they like; all the latter really does is set the rate of interest, the cost of money, not its quantity. Since the beginning of the recession, the US and British central banks have reduced that cost to almost nothing. In fact, with "quantitative easing" they've been effectively pumping as much money as they can into the banks, without producing any inflationary effects.

What this means is that the real limit on the amount of money in circulation is not how much the central bank is willing to lend, but how much government, firms, and ordinary citizens, are willing to borrow. Government spending is the main driver in all this (and the paper does admit, if you read it carefully, that the central bank does fund the government after all). So there's no question of public spending "crowding out" private investment. It's exactly the opposite.

Why did the Bank of England suddenly admit all this? Well, one reason is because it's obviously true. The Bank's job is to actually run the system, and of late, the system has not been running especially well. It's possible that it decided that maintaining the fantasy-land version of economics that has proved so convenient to the rich is simply a luxury it can no longer afford.

But politically, this is taking an enormous risk. Just consider what might happen if mortgage holders realised the money the bank lent them is not, really, the life savings of some thrifty pensioner, but something the bank just whisked into existence through its possession of a magic wand which we, the public, handed over to it.

Historically, the Bank of England has tended to be a bellwether, staking out seeming radical positions that ultimately become new orthodoxies. If that's what's happening here, we might soon be in a position to learn if Henry Ford was right."

You were likely banned cause you're boring.

peepee » 05 Nov 2017 11:34 pm » wrote:...first, 'liberal forum' is to be applauded for the 'no holds barred political forum'....i've tried numerous times on other sites to expose monetary ignorance/ignoramuses but i've ALWAYS been banned, etc., by the [stoooooopid **** republicrat] mods...thanks to lf, hopefully, we are all going to learn something about 'money' and some of us are going to have some wicked good fun exposing the loud republicrat numbskulls who frequently work their gaping pie holes about 'the illion dollar economy' absent an honest clue as to the hideous origin and nature of even one dollar...[heads up, radio republicans!]

...hmmmm, now where do i start?...here's an article from a mainstream outfit that i'll use to kick off what i hope will be the most popular thread in political forum history!:
...

...Historically, the Bank of England has tended to be a bellwether, staking out seeming radical positions that ultimately become new orthodoxies. If that's what's happening here, we might soon be in a position to learn if Henry Ford was right."

Good luck on your desire to be popular


I found this article interesting (no pun intended).

People in general, admittedly myself included, believed Quantitative Easing was "printing money" so to speak. This article helped define those events for me a bit.
While I still believe we are being sold a fake rosy picture about inflation, I can begin to understand the delay in the spike; it has been blunted and will take some time.

Ours is a slower erosion than the two countries mentioned,
but buying buying food and paying the utility bills weekly/monthly is proof inflation is certainly not non-existent. Or low.

The Sword of Damocles hangs...

----------------

Why Didn't Quantitative Easing Lead to Hyperinflation?By Adam Hayes, CFA | Updated March 24, 2017 — 2:47 PM EDT

For more than six years, the U.S. Federal Reserve has been administering round after round of Quantitative Easing (QE), and only recently decided to scale back its operations. If the Fed had not stepped in in 2008, chances are the U.S. economy would have entered a deep depression, much worse than what was experienced. When QE was first put on the table following the financial collapse that gave way to the Great Recession, many people feared that it would ultimately lead to runaway inflation like the kind seen in Zimbabwe (and its 1 trillion dollar bill), Argentina, Hungary or the German Weimar Republic.
Prices did rise modestly during that period, but by historical measures inflation was subdued, and a far cry from being a hyperinflation. Why aren't we all pushing around wheelbarrows full of banknotes to the supermarket? (For more, see: What's the difference between Hyperinflation and Inflation?)
Why QE Didn't Cause Hyperinflation
As the Great Recession set in, the Fed dropped its interest rate target to close to zero, and then was forced to use unconventional monetary policy tools including quantitative easing. It is important to realize that QE was an emergency measure used to stimulate the economy and prevent it from tumbling into a deflationary spiral.
When financial institutions collapse and there is a high degree of economic uncertainty, people and businesses choose to hoard their money rather than risk investment and potential loss. When money is hoarded, it is not spent and so producers are forced to lower prices in order to clear their inventories. But why would somebody spend a dollar today when they expect that prices will be lower – and their dollar can buy effectively more – tomorrow? The result is that hoarding continues, prices keep falling, and the economy grinds to a halt.
The first reason, then, why QE did not lead to hyperinflation is because the state of the economy was already deflationary when it began. After QE1, the fed underwent a second round of quantitative easing, QE2. Here the central bank undertook open market operations where it purchased assets from banks in return for dollars.
It is true the monetary base spiked during these initial rounds of QE, but the second reason QE didn't lead to hyperinflation is we live under a fractional reserve baking system whereby the money supply is more than just the amount of physical coins, paper money and bank deposits in the system. (For more, see: How Unconventional Monetary Policy Works.)
The monetary base, or M0, is what most people think about when it comes to the amount of money in circulation, but banks are in the business of making loans with the deposits on hand. The money from those loans are then deposited back into the banking system and re-loaned, over and over again. This is the so-called money multiplier effect. If the multiplier is 10x, for every $100 deposited into a bank up to $1,000 of new credit money is created through this mechanism. The M2 measure of the money supply, which includes the effects of fractional reserve banking and credit, was actually quite stable during this period. Below are graphs of the M0 and M2 money supply measures.


So where did all the M0 money go if it wasn't multiplied through the credit system? The answer is that banks and financial institutions hoarded the money in order to shore up their own balance sheets and regain profitability. Banks still had bad loans and toxic assets on their balance sheets as a result of the housing bubble burst and its aftershocks. The extra cash on hand made their financial picture look a whole lot better. As the economy has recovered and the fed has begun tapering its interventions, the money being held by banks is being returned to the Fed slowly in the form of interest payments on the debts purchased during QE. Meanwhile, the U.S. economy on the whole has remained productive and growing.
The Bottom Line
Many feared that QE would spell hyperinflation for the U.S. economy following the economic crisis of 2008. The crisis, however, was largely a deflationary phenomenon and the money being injected into the system by QE, as seen by spike in the M0 monetary base, was by and large retained by the financial sector, with the more important M2 money supply remained fairly stable.
Hyperinflation is an exponential rise in prices and tends to occur not when countries print too much money, but is instead associated with a collapse in the real underlying economy. The printing of money is a desperate effort to maintain stability and prevent production from coming to a halt. Weimar Germany was ruined by the production standstill following WWI in the Ruhr valley, and Zimbabwe’s Mugabe destroyed the country's agricultural production capacity and infrastructure. On the other hand, the U.S. economy remained productive during the period of the Great Recession and only saw very modest increases in inflation.

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/in ... lation.asp

peepee » 05 Nov 2017 11:34 pm » wrote:...first, 'liberal forum' is to be applauded for the 'no holds barred political forum'....i've tried numerous times on other sites to expose monetary ignorance/ignoramuses but i've ALWAYS been banned, etc., by the [stoooooopid **** republicrat] mods

blah, blah, blah, blah, as usual.

peepee » 05 Nov 2017 11:34 pm » wrote:...first, 'liberal forum' is to be applauded for the 'no holds barred political forum'....i've tried numerous times on other sites to expose monetary ignorance/ignoramuses but i've ALWAYS been banned, etc., by the [stoooooopid **** republicrat] mods...thanks to lf, hopefully, we are all going to learn something about 'money' and some of us are going to have some wicked good fun exposing the loud republicrat numbskulls who frequently work their gaping pie holes about 'the illion dollar economy' absent an honest clue as to the hideous origin and nature of even one dollar...[heads up, radio republicans!]

...hmmmm, now where do i start?...here's an article from a mainstream outfit that i'll use to kick off what i hope will be the most popular thread in political forum history!:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -austerity

Back in the 1930s, Henry Ford is supposed to have remarked that it was a good thing that most Americans didn't know how banking really works, because if they did, "there'd be a revolution before tomorrow morning."

Last week, something remarkable happened. The Bank of England let the cat out of the bag. In a paper called "Money Creation in the Modern Economy", co-authored by three economists from the Bank's Monetary Analysis Directorate, they stated outright that most common assumptions of how banking works are simply wrong, and that the kind of populist, heterodox positions more ordinarily associated with groups such as Occupy Wall Street are correct. In doing so, they have effectively thrown the entire theoretical basis for austerity out of the window.

To get a sense of how radical the Bank's new position is, consider the conventional view, which continues to be the basis of all respectable debate on public policy. People put their money in banks. Banks then lend that money out at interest – either to consumers, or to entrepreneurs willing to invest it in some profitable enterprise. True, the fractional reserve system does allow banks to lend out considerably more than they hold in reserve, and true, if savings don't suffice, private banks can seek to borrow more from the central bank.

The central bank can print as much money as it wishes. But it is also careful not to print too much. In fact, we are often told this is why independent central banks exist in the first place. If governments could print money themselves, they would surely put out too much of it, and the resulting inflation would throw the economy into chaos. Institutions such as the Bank of England or US Federal Reserve were created to carefully regulate the money supply to prevent inflation. This is why they are forbidden to directly fund the government, say, by buying treasury bonds, but instead fund private economic activity that the government merely taxes.

It's this understanding that allows us to continue to talk about money as if it were a limited resource like bauxite or petroleum, to say "there's just not enough money" to fund social programmes, to speak of the immorality of government debt or of public spending "crowding out" the private sector. What the Bank of England admitted this week is that none of this is really true. To quote from its own initial summary: "Rather than banks receiving deposits when households save and then lending them out, bank lending creates deposits" … "In normal times, the central bank does not fix the amount of money in circulation, nor is central bank money 'multiplied up' into more loans and deposits."

In other words, everything we know is not just wrong – it's backwards. When banks make loans, they create money. This is because money is really just an IOU. The role of the central bank is to preside over a legal order that effectively grants banks the exclusive right to create IOUs of a certain kind, ones that the government will recognise as legal tender by its willingness to accept them in payment of taxes. There's really no limit on how much banks could create, provided they can find someone willing to borrow it. They will never get caught short, for the simple reason that borrowers do not, generally speaking, take the cash and put it under their mattresses; ultimately, any money a bank loans out will just end up back in some bank again. So for the banking system as a whole, every loan just becomes another deposit. What's more, insofar as banks do need to acquire funds from the central bank, they can borrow as much as they like; all the latter really does is set the rate of interest, the cost of money, not its quantity. Since the beginning of the recession, the US and British central banks have reduced that cost to almost nothing. In fact, with "quantitative easing" they've been effectively pumping as much money as they can into the banks, without producing any inflationary effects.

What this means is that the real limit on the amount of money in circulation is not how much the central bank is willing to lend, but how much government, firms, and ordinary citizens, are willing to borrow. Government spending is the main driver in all this (and the paper does admit, if you read it carefully, that the central bank does fund the government after all). So there's no question of public spending "crowding out" private investment. It's exactly the opposite.

Why did the Bank of England suddenly admit all this? Well, one reason is because it's obviously true. The Bank's job is to actually run the system, and of late, the system has not been running especially well. It's possible that it decided that maintaining the fantasy-land version of economics that has proved so convenient to the rich is simply a luxury it can no longer afford.

But politically, this is taking an enormous risk. Just consider what might happen if mortgage holders realised the money the bank lent them is not, really, the life savings of some thrifty pensioner, but something the bank just whisked into existence through its possession of a magic wand which we, the public, handed over to it.

Historically, the Bank of England has tended to be a bellwether, staking out seeming radical positions that ultimately become new orthodoxies. If that's what's happening here, we might soon be in a position to learn if Henry Ford was right."

son...the only value you have here is when you are NOT here....thanks for leaving pubis

Best not to confuse the masses, they are still learning to balance a checking account.

These are the fees collected only by three banks, mind you. Overall, America's banks took in an estimated $32.5 billion in overdraft fees during the 12-month period that ended last June, and $42.3 billion in total fees. The average out-of-network ATM fee is $4.35 per transaction, according to Bankrate.com.
Jan 15, 2016

indago » 06 Nov 2017 3:32 am » wrote:
There is already a thread on this subject in which you posted... and ad nauseam too, I might add...

POSTED

....dante brought 'capitalism' into that thread...i've never heard any two republicrats define the THEORY of 'capitalism' the same so threads like that get real confused especially when republican-radio-level 'thinkers' start commenting...i wanted to start a thread on the REALITY of 'our' [hideous] money order and the verifiable ignorance of republicrats like squirmin8tor, stinky **** and the rest of the abundant verifiable monetary ignoramuses around here...

...i like to start at a very basic level with republicrats like squirmy, dildo, stinky, et al....because they are so obviously and fundamentally ignorant about the origin and nature of the money for which they suck peepee....for example, if dildo/squirmy/stinky/et al were comfortable and honest and i asked them to describe the first thing they see in their 'mind's eye' when i said the word 'dog'...they would/could conjure and describe some/a 'real dog'...same thing if i said 'cat,' 'automobile,' 'santa claus,' etc. ad nauseam...and if i asked them to describe their 'mind's eye' image of a baseball game, sexual intercourse, etc..they would have a realistic image in their 'mind's eye' based on their life experiences, etc...

...BUT, if, for example, i asked them to describe what appears immediately in their mind's eye when i ask them to conjure 'the creation of dollars/money'...i'm ALMOST CERTAIN (judging from their previous ignoramus postings, etc.) they 'see' a printing press with the little green ragcloth rectangles rolling down the line...printed in some GOVERNMENT/PUBLIC building....now that's some 'brainwashing'!!!...

...btw, don't feel bad, republicrat mcstinkers, i too used to be a brainwashed republicrat monetary ignoramus spouting republicrat THEORY...but now i see THE REALITY much more clearly in my mind's eye:...'money/dollar' creation is just some private commercial bankster lackey tapping some new number$ into some account they've created for someone...

...(btw, if your brow is furrowed...you just may be a brainwa$hed republicrat monetary ignoramus!...turn off the **** republican radio and get 'monetary realism'...)

peepee » 06 Nov 2017 3:35 pm » wrote: ....dante brought 'capitalism' into that thread..

And why not? The monetary system is a part of capitalism...

peepee » 06 Nov 2017 3:35 pm » wrote: ....dante brought 'capitalism' into that thread...i've never heard any two republicrats define the THEORY of 'capitalism' the same so threads like that get real confused especially when republican-radio-level 'thinkers' start commenting...i wanted to start a thread on the REALITY of 'our' [hideous] money order and the verifiable ignorance of republicrats like squirmin8tor, stinky **** and the rest of the abundant verifiable monetary ignoramuses around here...

...i like to start at a very basic level with republicrats like squirmy, dildo, stinky, et al....because they are so obviously and fundamentally ignorant about the origin and nature of the money for which they suck peepee....for example, if dildo/squirmy/stinky/et al were comfortable and honest and i asked them to describe the first thing they see in their 'mind's eye' when i said the word 'dog'...they would/could conjure and describe some/a 'real dog'...same thing if i said 'cat,' 'automobile,' 'santa claus,' etc. ad nauseam...and if i asked them to describe their 'mind's eye' image of a baseball game, sexual intercourse, etc..they would have a realistic image in their 'mind's eye' based on their life experiences, etc...

...BUT, if, for example, i asked them to describe what appears immediately in their mind's eye when i ask them to conjure 'the creation of dollars/money'...i'm ALMOST CERTAIN (judging from their previous ignoramus postings, etc.) they 'see' a printing press with the little green ragcloth rectangles rolling down the line...printed in some GOVERNMENT/PUBLIC building....now that's some 'brainwashing'!!!...

...btw, don't feel bad, republicrat mcstinkers, i too used to be a brainwashed republicrat monetary ignoramus spouting republicrat THEORY...but now i see THE REALITY much more clearly in my mind's eye:...'money/dollar' creation is just some private commercial bankster lackey tapping some new number$ into some account they've created for someone...

...(btw, if your brow is furrowed...you just may be a brainwa$hed republicrat monetary ignoramus!...turn off the **** republican radio and get 'monetary realism'...)

Aaawwww geeeezzzz!! Another long winded rant!!!

peepee » 06 Nov 2017 3:35 pm » wrote: ....dante brought 'capitalism' into that thread...i've never heard any two republicrats define the THEORY of 'capitalism' the same ...

I’ll give it a shot...


Capitalism is a political and economic system in which governments favor certain industry cartels through legislation and welfare from the public treasury

We have a modified capitalism restricting monopolies and trusts. Regulated monopolies exist for utilities etc. where competition wouldn't work because of infrastructure. Multiple power companies would be a huge mess to say nothing of gas, water, and sewer.

GeorgeWashington » 06 Nov 2017 5:12 pm » wrote:
I’ll give it a shot...

Capitalism is a political and economic system in which governments favor certain industry cartels through legislation and welfare from the public treasury

....although i might agree with some of your definition, i've found that most republicrats--including probably all the republican-radio-levelers here- view 'capitalism' as somewhat synonymous with, 'the free market': cap·i·tal·ismˈkapədlˌizəm/ noun an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. synonyms: free enterprise, private enterprise, the free market; enterprise culture "the capitalism of emerging nations"

...what i'm trying to explain is that 'money'/'the dollar' is virtually one half of every 'economic transaction' in the imaginary/theoretical 'capitalist/etc. economy' about which the likes of toadstool, squirmy, stinky, dildo, strange-edge, etc. republican-sucking radio fools galore, are frequently working their radio parrot holes...and not only are these brain-laundered republicrat parrots ignorant of the hideous REALITY of the monetary order, these stooooopid **** honestly believe they 'know all they need to know' about the money for which they grovel...

...i'll go one step further: ...i believe you'll find that most people here have some goddamned vague, ignorant notion that 'dollars' are 'printed' [created] by 'the government' when 'the government' spends more 'dollars' than 'it' collects in taxes...

...this is fundamental and fatal ignorance...and it is SURELY a tough obstacle to overcome when trying to talk to these stooooooooooopid **** republicrats!..i.e. their holes are frequently open about illion$ of some'thing' about which they are WORSE THAN IGNORANT [they falsely believe they understand] as to even the basics: the origin, nature, etc., of 'dollars'...

...arguments about 'capitalism' and 'socialism' etc. 'isms' galore, by goddamned republicrat radio/teevee fools who don't even know what a **** 'dollar' is are much less valuable than ****!..word...

peepee » 07 Nov 2017 6:28 am » wrote:
....although i might agree with some of your definition, i've found that most republicrats--including probably all the republican-radio-levelers here- view 'capitalism' as somewhat synonymous with, 'the free market': cap·i·tal·ismˈkapədlˌizəm/
noun an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.



synonyms:
free enterprise, private enterprise
, the free market; enterprise culture
"the capitalism of emerging nations"

...what i'm trying to explain is that 'money'/'the dollar' is virtually one half of every 'economic transaction' in the imaginary/theoretical 'capitalist economy' about which the likes of toadstool, squirmy, stinky, dildo, strange-edge, etc. republican-sucking radio fools galore, are frequently working their radio parrot holes...and not only are these brain-laundered republicrat parrots ignorant of the hideous REALITY of the monetary order, these stooooopid **** honestly believe they 'know all they need to know' about the money for which they grovel...

...i'll go one step further: ...i believe you'll find that most people here have some goddamned vague, ignorant notion that 'dollars' are 'printed' [created] by 'the government' when 'the government' spends more 'dollars' than 'it' collects in taxes...

...this is fundamental and fatal ignorance...and it is SURELY a tough obstacle to overcome when trying to talk to these stooooooooooopid **** republicrats!..i.e. their holes are frequently open about illion$ of some'thing' about which they are WORSE THAN IGNORANT [they falsely believe they understand] as to even the basics: the origin, nature, etc., of 'dollars'...

...arguments about 'capitalism' and 'socialism' etc. 'isms' galore, by goddamned republicrat radio/teevee fools who don't even know what a **** 'dollar' is are much less valuable than ****!..word...

I understand why you never cite prog-radio.


ie: Air America in the Tank

roadkill » 07 Nov 2017 6:31 am » wrote:
I understand why you never cite prog-radio.

ie: Air America in the Tank

...i don't get 'prog radio', republican dummy...the very little radio i get is most/all your stinking republicans...btw, i'm sorry i bore you with a subject so insignificant as the money for which you suck hog...i know you crave the intellectual stimulation of monetary ignoramus republican radio parrots squawking, 'democrat/liberal bad, republican/conservative good/not as bad' all goddamned day long...

peepee » 07 Nov 2017 6:44 am » wrote:


...i don't get it...the very little radio i get is most/all your stinking republicans...btw, i'm sorry i bore you with a subject so insignificant as the money for which you suck hog...i know you crave the intellectual stimulation of monetary ignoramus republican radio parrots squawking, 'democrat/liberal bad, republican/conservative good/not as bad' all goddamned day long...

"the very little radio i get"



That's cause prog-radio can't cut it...just like you.