Liberal Forum

indago » 06 Nov 2017 4:54 pm » wrote:
And why not? The monetary system is a part of capitalism...

...economic THEORIES are mostly worthless...especially when they are discussed by republicrats worse than ignorant of monetary REALITY...

...as one russian wag put it, "The state does not function as we desired. A man is at the wheel and seems to lead it, but the car does not drive in the desired direction. It moves as another force wishes." [psssst, republicrats, 'another force' appears to be 'the banksters']

roadkill » 07 Nov 2017 6:46 am » wrote:That's cause prog-radio can't cut it...just like you.

...are you bragging that your stinking radio-republicans suck bankster cock and are $u$tained by said banksters whose cocks are sucked by your radio republicans?...

...see what i mean, GEORGE WASHINGTON, this typical republican radio idiot hints at some 'free/fair market' in this 'capitalist economy'/radio/teevee 'market'...

peepee » 07 Nov 2017 7:05 am » wrote:


...are you bragging that your stinking radio-republicans suck bankster cock and are $u$tained by said banksters whose cocks are sucked by your radio republicans?...

...see what i mean, GEORGE WASHINGTON, this typical republican radio idiot hints at some 'free/fair market' in this 'capitalist economy'...

You need to get yourself up to date.


ie: see dems and banksters

roadkill » 07 Nov 2017 7:06 am » wrote:
You need to get yourself up to date.

ie: see dems and banksters

...as i've written MANY times before, the stinking democrats are every bit the monetary ignoramuses you stinking republicans are...not a dimes difference, you goddamned republican fool...but let's face it, you republican-radio monetary ignoramuses are waaaaaaaaaaay more loud around here!...why would i bitch-slap the/any [silent] democrats, *******?!..

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/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...

You are an ignorant atheist windbag spouting gibberish nonsense about capitalism in the US. We have a modified capitalism restricting monopolies and trusts. Regulated monopolies for infrastructure are the only ones allowed. Otherwise trusts and monopolies are illegal. Your insane rants ignore the facts about how it works. Each business has competitors offering goods and services so people can choose what best fits their needs with price and quality of the product or service. Someone having a significantly higher price for the same quality of product or service will lose customers. Thus going out of business.

PEEPEE IS AN IGNORANT STUPID WINDBAG!!!

roadkill » 07 Nov 2017 7:06 am » wrote: You need to get yourself up to date.

ie: see dems and banksters

Love your signature!!!

peepee » 07 Nov 2017 7:13 am » wrote:

...as i've written MANY times before, the stinking democrats are every bit the monetary ignoramuses you stinking republicans are...not a dimes difference, you goddamned republican fool...but let's face it, you republican-radio monetary ignoramuses are waaaaaaaaaaay more loud around here!...why would i bitch-slap the/any [silent] democrats, *******?!..

Methinks you are an idiot. Look at the results of the 4 election cycles.
President Republican
Congress Republican
36 state governors and legislatures Republican
6 states Democrat
8 states mixed going from Democrat

Two reasons why the Democrats are going down the tube

http://totalconservative.com/dnc-white- ... here-else/

http://totalconservative.com/freedom-di ... -violence/

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

Karl Marx and Pierre Joseph Proudhon popularized the term "capitalism" - contrary to popular myth, classical economists like Ricardo and Smith did not use the term "capitalism," even though it was implied in their works.

Production of commodities for exchange instead of use, private accumulation of capital, private ownership of productive property, and wage labor as the primary system of employment are the four mainstay pillars of capitalism.

Before I continue, I am obligated to correct two common myths:

1) that a central bank is anathema to capitalism. I don't know why this libertarian myth has run rampant in the past few years, but it is patently false. The stated purpose of central banks is to stabilize the monetary system (which in turn will stabilize the entire economy - I will not argue that central banks are particularly successful at this job), while in reality central banks act as hit-men for the ruling class, which earn their profits by exploiting the "time value of money" (another capitalist creation). The lie behind the TVM is that idle money in the present is worth more than money in the future. I will not spend time debunking the TVM for now, but suffice to say, it is a tenet of capitalist economics.

2) that a central bank "prints money out of thin air."

Before I debunk this myth, I must point out that I am not arguing central banks don't increase the money supply.

I am arguing that the money doesn't come out of nowhere ("thin air").

This is the critical flaw in Austrian economics, and why it should be fully rejected.

Money is simply a representation of value in a capitalist system. The value, in the end, must come from somewhere. Value cannot be "created out of thin air." It is mathematically impossible.

When the central bank expands its balance sheet by buying securities from the primary banks, the banks are expected to loan out the money at interest. The interest that is to be returned to the bank (based on the principal) represents the increase in money supply.

In reality, many things can happen:

Perhaps the increase in M2 (most widely used metric of circulating money) will lead to an increase in inflation, which robs savers and helps debtors. In this case, the debtors "win" and the creditors "lose."

Perhaps the debtors (people with student loans, people with mortgages) will pay exorbitant interest over the lifetime of those loans. This represents the future value of the debt holder being robbed to pay for the creditor. In most cases, the debtor needs to work/labor to pay off the interest, so money is not being "created out of thin air," but on the backs of the DEBTORS.

Infrequently, the debtor will default, resulting in a net loss of money supply. In this case, value is "destroyed" and no money is being created at all. (Note here that I am assuming we apply a "fair" or "equitable" standard of dealing with defaults, which is to write off the bill completely. Of course, back in reality, the debtors are hounded for the rest of their lives to pay back the money, showing you how powerful the creditors/banking cartels are)

Either way, the point is VALUE must be created to offset the debt, or the increase in debt will lead to default (which will backfire and hurt the Treasury bond holders the most).

But in the standard case, where the debtor/person who loans money from the banking institutions pays back the principal + interest in full, the process of "printing money" means that future (unrealized/unfulfilled) value of labor will be robbed to satisfy the holders of capital (which, in this case, is the money lent out) and pay back the interest. It is this process whereby money is "created."

I literally cannot stress this part enough. The "print money out of thin air" argument fails to incorporate the entire life cycle of money lending and creation.

To summarize my argument:

1) Money is simply a representation of value. If the amount of "value" stays the same, while the money supply increases, inflation will result.

2) Central banks indirectly loan money to the primary banks (BAC, JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, etc.), which then loan out the money to consumers and businesses. Wages and profits are then used to pay back the interest on those loans - it is this source of value that is used to "expand the money supply."

Back to the main topic:

We live under a neoliberal capitalist system today. Anyone who says, "we live under a socialist system because our government spends 40% of GDP!" is lying or ignorant of what socialism is.

Now I want to address a point that you and CP like to bring up, since I feel there is room for error in your analysis.

The "free market" and "capitalism" are minor distinctions as a truly unfettered market never lasts for long - the most powerful players gobble up the small and then use the state to limit access to markets while ensuring the continuity of certain privileges. In fact, this was a central paradox in Marxist economics - competition tends to eliminate competition, resulting in oligopolies and monopolies. There are many reasons for this, including "sunk investment costs" and scaling economies, but I won't write an essay. This phenomenon is easily observable in the real world - Walmart overtakes mom and pop shops by undercutting them and then raising costs once they're out of business, mergers and acquisitions increase profit margins due to less competition, etc.

Initially, a group of competitors might engage in what is considered a "free, competitive market," but it almost never stays this way.


Another fact: Only a retarded mouth-breather like Termin8tor thinks the "the librul left" as opposed to the titans of industry are primarily responsible for weeding out the competition. The imbecile can only stick to talking points on tax cuts, since the subject is the true extent of his " knowledge." Eat **** you stupid moron.

Oh, and one final note, to user "Peepee"

....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...

I used the term "capitalism" since that is the system we live under. A central bank does not contradict any of the fundamental tenets of capitalism, as I defined the term specifically in this thread.

Yes, I agree that "radio republicans" like Spermineater, Dildo, Stinky **** are complete retards, but feel free to argue against (intelligent) people who disagree with you respectfully.

I am fully aware of how the monetary system works - I do not agree with your interpretation. Just like how Cannon made an excellent argument for zoning regulations, as nobody (not even the most die hard libertarians) want to live next to a trash heap.

Equally as troubling as the "bankster cartel" mentioned in this thread is the decline in money velocity. It stands at 1.5 today (on average, a dollar only travels across one and a half people before it stops circulating and likely sits in some offshore account). The primary culprit is the wealth inequality generated by capitalist economics.

Time to violently seize and expropriate the wealth and assets of the criminal ruling class and depose of the system altogether.

Sgt Bilko » 07 Nov 2017 2:34 pm » wrote: Love your signature!!!

More importantly...Misty loves it.

We're buddies ya know.

Dantev2 » 07 Nov 2017 3:39 pm » wrote: Karl Marx and Pierre Joseph Proudhon popularized the term "capitalism" - contrary to popular myth, classical economists like Ricardo and Smith did not use the term "capitalism," even though it was implied in their works.

Production of commodities for exchange instead of use, private accumulation of capital, private ownership of productive property, and wage labor as the primary system of employment are the four mainstay pillars of capitalism.

Before I continue, I am obligated to correct two common myths:

1) that a central bank is anathema to capitalism. I don't know why this libertarian myth has run rampant in the past few years, but it is patently false. The stated purpose of central banks is to stabilize the monetary system (which in turn will stabilize the entire economy - I will not argue that central banks are particularly successful at this job), while in reality central banks act as hit-men for the ruling class, which earn their profits by exploiting the "time value of money" (another capitalist creation). The lie behind the TVM is that idle money in the present is worth more than money in the future. I will not spend time debunking the TVM for now, but suffice to say, it is a tenet of capitalist economics.

2) that a central bank "prints money out of thin air."

Before I debunk this myth, I must point out that I am not arguing central banks don't increase the money supply.

I am arguing that the money doesn't come out of nowhere ("thin air").

This is the critical flaw in Austrian economics, and why it should be fully rejected.

Money is simply a representation of value in a capitalist system. The value, in the end, must come from somewhere. Value cannot be "created out of thin air." It is mathematically impossible.

When the central bank expands its balance sheet by buying securities from the primary banks, the banks are expected to loan out the money at interest. The interest that is to be returned to the bank (based on the principal) represents the increase in money supply.

In reality, many things can happen:

Perhaps the increase in M2 (most widely used metric of circulating money) will lead to an increase in inflation, which robs savers and helps debtors. In this case, the debtors "win" and the creditors "lose."

Perhaps the debtors (people with student loans, people with mortgages) will pay exorbitant interest over the lifetime of those loans. This represents the future value of the debt holder being robbed to pay for the creditor. In most cases, the debtor needs to work/labor to pay off the interest, so money is not being "created out of thin air," but on the backs of the DEBTORS.

Infrequently, the debtor will default, resulting in a net loss of money supply. In this case, value is "destroyed" and no money is being created at all. (Note here that I am assuming we apply a "fair" or "equitable" standard of dealing with defaults, which is to write off the bill completely. Of course, back in reality, the debtors are hounded for the rest of their lives to pay back the money, showing you how powerful the creditors/banking cartels are)

Either way, the point is VALUE must be created to offset the debt, or the increase in debt will lead to default (which will backfire and hurt the Treasury bond holders the most).

But in the standard case, where the debtor/person who loans money from the banking institutions pays back the principal + interest in full, the process of "printing money" means that future (unrealized/unfulfilled) value of labor will be robbed to satisfy the holders of capital (which, in this case, is the money lent out) and pay back the interest. It is this process whereby money is "created."

I literally cannot stress this part enough. The "print money out of thin air" argument fails to incorporate the entire life cycle of money lending and creation.

To summarize my argument:

1) Money is simply a representation of value. If the amount of "value" stays the same, while the money supply increases, inflation will result.

2) Central banks indirectly loan money to the primary banks (BAC, JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, etc.), which then loan out the money to consumers and businesses. Wages and profits are then used to pay back the interest on those loans - it is this source of value that is used to "expand the money supply."

Back to the main topic:

We live under a neoliberal capitalist system today. Anyone who says, "we live under a socialist system because our government spends 40% of GDP!" is lying or ignorant of what socialism is.

Now I want to address a point that you and CP like to bring up, since I feel there is room for error in your analysis.

The "free market" and "capitalism" are minor distinctions as a truly unfettered market never lasts for long - the most powerful players gobble up the small and then use the state to limit access to markets while ensuring the continuity of certain privileges. In fact, this was a central paradox in Marxist economics - competition tends to eliminate competition, resulting in oligopolies and monopolies. There are many reasons for this, including "sunk investment costs" and scaling economies, but I won't write an essay. This phenomenon is easily observable in the real world - Walmart overtakes mom and pop shops by undercutting them and then raising costs once they're out of business, mergers and acquisitions increase profit margins due to less competition, etc.

Initially, a group of competitors might engage in what is considered a "free, competitive market," but it almost never stays this way.

Another fact: Only a retarded mouth-breather like Termin8tor thinks the "the librul left" as opposed to the titans of industry are primarily responsible for weeding out the competition. The imbecile can only stick to talking points on tax cuts, since the subject is the true extent of his " knowledge." Eat **** you stupid moron.

It is obvious to the casual observer that you are an ignorant atheist windbag spouting gibberish nonsense about everything.

First the Federal Reserve banks do create money out of thin air as part of the Quantitave Easing 1, 2, 3 etc. Magically they gave money to banks where none existed before. They were interest free loans. Please explain how they did this magic!!!

Vituperous comments only demonstrate your own ignorance!!!

Dantev2 » 07 Nov 2017 3:39 pm » wrote:
Karl Marx and Pierre Joseph Proudhon popularized the term "capitalism" - contrary to popular myth, classical economists like Ricardo and Smith did not use the term "capitalism," even though it was implied in their works.

Production of commodities for exchange instead of use, private accumulation of capital, private ownership of productive property, and wage labor as the primary system of employment are the four mainstay pillars of capitalism.

Before I continue, I am obligated to correct two common myths:

1) that a central bank is anathema to capitalism. I don't know why this libertarian myth has run rampant in the past few years, but it is patently false. The stated purpose of central banks is to stabilize the monetary system (which in turn will stabilize the entire economy - I will not argue that central banks are particularly successful at this job), while in reality central banks act as hit-men for the ruling class, which earn their profits by exploiting the "time value of money" (another capitalist creation). The lie behind the TVM is that idle money in the present is worth more than money in the future. I will not spend time debunking the TVM for now, but suffice to say, it is a tenet of capitalist economics.

2) that a central bank "prints money out of thin air."

Before I debunk this myth, I must point out that I am not arguing central banks don't increase the money supply.

I am arguing that the money doesn't come out of nowhere ("thin air").

This is the critical flaw in Austrian economics, and why it should be fully rejected.

Money is simply a representation of value in a capitalist system. The value, in the end, must come from somewhere. Value cannot be "created out of thin air." It is mathematically impossible.

Google, "counterfeiting."

When you've exposed yourself to the fact that money CAN BE AND IS "created out of thin air," you can then take on the task of explaining precisely what makes the original fed notes more "authentic" and more "valuable" than their counterfeit cousins. I will be waiting raptly for that explication.

Sgt Bilko » 07 Nov 2017 6:58 pm » wrote: First the Federal Reserve banks do create money out of thin air as part of the Quantitave Easing 1, 2, 3 etc. Magically they gave money to banks where none existed before. They were interest free loans. Please explain how they did this magic!!!

The little darling has a point, dantev.

Cannonpointer » 07 Nov 2017 9:18 pm » wrote:Google, "counterfeiting."

When you've exposed yourself to the fact that money CAN BE AND IS "created out of thin air," you can then take on the task of explaining precisely what makes the original fed notes more "authentic" and more "valuable" than their counterfeit cousins. I will be waiting raptly for that explication.

Bad move, friend. Do not ask me to defend a system I don't agree with. I would gradually do away with money altogether.

I took issue with your criticism because your mortars are launched in the wrong direction - it is interest and not "printing money" that you ought to concern yourself with. Fiat money and commodity money both serve the same purpose - as media of exchange and storage of value. The only difference is fiat money is not intrinsically valuable and requires the users' faith in, or forced compliance by, the issuer (usually a political entity, like the US state).

Which brings me to a couple of points, and why the "out of thin air" phrasing is silly: what kind of currency in circulation isn't "created out of thin air?" If a country on the gold and silver standard mines gold and silver deposits, which results in inflation, how is that any different from a central bank printing money?

I know you jest about conjobs and fake libertarians like AteWedge sucking on banker cock, but you can't use that line on me.



Now let's examine your claim - counterfeiting. Suppose the total amount of money in circulation is X, and the total amount of goods and services produced is Y. The base case ratio is X/Y. One unit of X buys one unit of Y.

Using your logic, if a counterfeit operation or central bank (in your view, those 2 are no different) prints money and increases X by 20%, we now have 1.2X/Y. Each unit of X is devalued by 17% (1 / 1.2). What really happens is the money adjusts accordingly so that 1.2 X buys 1 Y, and each unit of X only purchases 83% of what it used to buy.

The value is taken from the existing pool of money and re-distributed to adjust for parity for the added money. In the real world, this "inflation" hurts those who hold/are lending out money, and helps those who owe money.


Let's take the inverse case - What if a currency deflates? Suppose a central bank takes 50% of a currency out of the money supply. We now have 0.5X/Y.

Is that "destroying money out of thin air?"

I will restate what I posted earlier - money is simply a representation of value. Creating more money (creating more "storage" of value) only changes the ratio of money/goods & services, it DOES NOT change the fact that the ratio will adjust to its "true" value eventually.

To use Sgt. Dildo's example, the Federal Reserve credited the accounts of banks by buying securities from the banks and inflating their own balance sheets. He argues the Fed created money out of "thin air."

In reality, the money is created out of the future expectation/liabilities that banks will pay the Reserve back. Now where do you think JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, and Bank of America will obtain this money from? The businesses and workers who will supposedly create all that value to justify the expansion of the balance sheets.

If you want to argue semantics (central banks electronically credit the private banks by adding in some numbers digitally), I suppose you can make such a trivial case, but the underlying rationale for "printing money" is a far cry from the implication of such a statement.

There are many reasons to criticize the current monetary system, this isn't one of them. Your efforts are better directed toward the actual exploitation and rent-seeking of financiers and capitalists.

deezer shoove » 06 Nov 2017 7:08 am » wrote: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...
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/in ... lation.asp

...no need for internet 'friends'...i do value readership though...thanks...it seems you are on the path towards 'monetary realism' much much more advanced than the squirmy/stinky/dildo clan of phony republican rodeo radioers...

...i believe you, sir, would benefit greatly from reading jerry voorhis' "out of debt, out of danger"....as near as i can tell, voorhis was/is 'the champ' as to explaining the distinction between 'the fed' and the PRIVATE commercial banks where most of 'our' 'money' is created and issued in 'the first round' to 'the secret-squirrel bankster$' ...who, btw, literally own you and everything/one else through their control over 'money and its issuance'..

http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/monetizethis.php


�As a direct result of logical and relentless agitation by members of Congress, led by Congressman Wright Patman as well as by other competent monetary experts, the Federal Reserve began to pay to the U.S. Treasury a considerable part of its earnings from interest on government securities. This was done without public notice and few people, even today, know that it is being done. It was done, quite obviously, as acknowledgment that the Federal Reserve Banks were acting on the one hand as a national bank of issue, creating the nation�s money, but on the other hand charging the nation interest on its own credit � which no true national bank of issue could conceivably, or with any show of justice, dare to do.�
Voorhis went on, �But this is only part of the story. And the less discouraging part, at that. For where the commercial banks are concerned, there is no such repayment of the people�s money.� Commercial banks, he explained, do not rebate the interest, although they also ��buy� the bonds with newly created demand deposit entries on their books � nothing more.�6
Voorhis noted that the Constitution provides, �Congress shall have the power to coin money [and] regulate the value thereof.� Whether �to coin money� means �to issue money� has been debated; but as President Andrew Jackson observed, if anyone was given the power to issue money, it was Congress, not a private banking elite. For a full century before the American Revolution, the colonists funded a period of unprecedented prosperity and productive enterprise with paper money issued directly by their own local governments or government-owned banks. According to Benjamin Franklin, it was chiefly to get that power back after King George halted the practice that the colonists fought the Revolution.7

peepee » 08 Nov 2017 6:12 am » wrote: ...no need for internet 'friends'...i do value readership though...thanks...it seems you are on the path towards 'monetary realism' much much more advanced than the squirmy/stinky/dildo clan of phony republican rodeo radioers...

...i believe you, sir, would benefit greatly from reading jerry voorhis' "out of debt, out of danger"....as near as i can tell, voorhis was/is 'the champ' as to explaining the distinction between 'the fed' and the PRIVATE commercial banks where most of 'our' 'money' is created and issued in 'the first round' to 'the secret-squirrel bankster$' ...who, btw, literally own you and everything/one else through their control over 'money and its issuance'..

http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/monetizethis.php

�As a direct result of logical and relentless agitation by members of Congress, led by Congressman Wright Patman as well as by other competent monetary experts, the Federal Reserve began to pay to the U.S. Treasury a considerable part of its earnings from interest on government securities. This was done without public notice and few people, even today, know that it is being done. It was done, quite obviously, as acknowledgment that the Federal Reserve Banks were acting on the one hand as a national bank of issue, creating the nation�s money, but on the other hand charging the nation interest on its own credit � which no true national bank of issue could conceivably, or with any show of justice, dare to do.�
Voorhis went on, �But this is only part of the story. And the less discouraging part, at that. For where the commercial banks are concerned, there is no such repayment of the people�s money.� Commercial banks, he explained, do not rebate the interest, although they also ��buy� the bonds with newly created demand deposit entries on their books � nothing more.�6
Voorhis noted that the Constitution provides, �Congress shall have the power to coin money [and] regulate the value thereof.� Whether �to coin money� means �to issue money� has been debated; but as President Andrew Jackson observed, if anyone was given the power to issue money, it was Congress, not a private banking elite. For a full century before the American Revolution, the colonists funded a period of unprecedented prosperity and productive enterprise with paper money issued directly by their own local governments or government-owned banks. According to Benjamin Franklin, it was chiefly to get that power back after King George halted the practice that the colonists fought the Revolution.7

So, what is "monetary realism"?

dantev2 writes: "Money is simply a representation of value in a capitalist system. The value, in the end, must come from somewhere. Value cannot be "created out of thin air." It is mathematically impossible. When the central bank expands its balance sheet by buying securities from the primary banks, the banks are expected to loan out the money at interest. The interest that is to be returned to the bank (based on the principal) represents the increase in money supply."




...please GET REAL!...stuff the stinking 'money is simply a representation of value in a capitalist system' subjective blather...OBJECTIVELY, 'money' IN YOUR LIFE, is, LARGELY, merely a number 'on the books' at some private bank...you would do yourself a great big favor by learning how these number$ originate--who, how, why, when---lest you remain ignorant of our hideou$ predicament and therefore part of the problem...

...btw, 'the value' of 'our' money is the result of 'forced-usage'...i.e. you [or someone acting in your behalf] MUST acquire and use [not] federal [no] reserve notes/tokens ['dollars' to republicrat peckerheads] if you wish to remain alive, not sleeping in a refrigerator box, and/or unincarcerated...GET REAL...

...cannonpointer, as usual, gets the gold so far...but i forsee a looming discussion about 'fiat money' where i will be forced to pull out some of my killer hold$ on mr cannon...

peepee » 08 Nov 2017 6:49 am » wrote:dantev2 writes: "Money is simply a representation of value in a capitalist system. The value, in the end, must come from somewhere. Value cannot be "created out of thin air." It is mathematically impossible. When the central bank expands its balance sheet by buying securities from the primary banks, the banks are expected to loan out the money at interest. The interest that is to be returned to the bank (based on the principal) represents the increase in money supply."




...please GET REAL!...stuff the stinking 'money is simply a representation of value in a capitalist system' subjective blather...OBJECTIVELY, 'money' IN YOUR LIFE, is, LARGELY, merely a number 'on the books' at some private bank...you would do yourself a great big favor by learning how these number$ originate--who, how, why, when---lest you remain ignorant of our hideou$ predicament and therefore part of the problem...

...btw, 'the value' of 'our' money is the result of 'forced-usage'...i.e. you [or someone acting in your behalf] MUST acquire and use [not] federal [no] reserve notes/tokens ['dollars' to republicrat peckerheads] if you wish to remain alive, not sleeping in a refrigerator box, and/or unincarcerated...GET REAL...

...cannonpointer, as usual, gets the gold so far...but i forsee a looming discussion about 'fiat money' where i will be forced to pull out some of my killer hold$ on mr cannon...

I will give this website's populace yet another chance...

I'll get a copy of jerry voorhis' "out of debt, out of danger" and check it out.


I last read "The Wild Asses Skin" because someone here mentioned they were re-reading it.
Apparently they thought that was impressive to mention to the NHB posters.
It was unworthy of my time.
But I don't stop reading a book I've started. (Maybe twice in my lifetime.)
So, Balzac became a wordy bore after a kajillion comparisons, similes, metaphors, analogies.
He's so clever I lost the point half the time.

Anyway, I'll give your actual recommendation a whirl since your aren't trying to impress other posters with a dip into an 18th century philosophical thesaurus.